Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ossett Corporation Water Bill [Lords], Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Ordered, that, in the case of Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now road the Third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords],

That, in the case of Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order),

Read the Third time, and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1918, relating to a drainage district in the administrative counties of the Parts of Holland and the Parts of Kesteven and the Soke of Peterborough," presented by Sir ARTHUR BOSCAWEN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the early
possibility of an armistice between the Greek and Turkish forces in Asia Minor, the British Government have taken the necessary action to warn British officers to be prepared to proceed at once to the area to be evacuated; and whether he will undertake that Allied liaison officers will arrive in time to be able to furnish, reports to their Governments regarding any incidents that may arise during the evacuation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As was stated in the Pronouncement issued by the Conference at Paris, the military arrangements for assuring the peaceful evacuation of the Smyrna district can be put into execution without delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MARTIAL LAW.

Mr. LUNN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on 20th March Colonel Shaheen, of the Egyptian Cavalry, entered, with his men, Wadinnil School, Cairo, and went to the dormitories; that he and his men dragged the students into the grounds and then flogged them, bound them, and took them to prison; and whether these acts are committed in the name of martial law maintained by His Majesty's Government who are responsible for the status quo in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the other parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of this man's military history, and, if not, will he take notice of a few incidents in his career if I send them to him?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be very glad to read them.

Mr. LUNN: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether he is aware that on 18th March a demontration in tramcars started from the Abbaseya quarter in Cairo; that on their arrival at Station Square they were met by Colonel Shaheen and his cavalrymen; that these officers forced the demonstrators to get out of the cars; that they
then tied four of the demonstrators to the horses and dragged them at a trot to the police station; and that they there had them flogged; and whether this was done in the name of martial law, for which His Majesty's Government is responsible?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The incidents mentioned in the question have not been reported to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MADAME ZAGHLOUL.

Mr. LUNN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that for four days last month One officer and four armed soldiers were posted at Madame Zaghloul's house in Cairo, and that many others occupied the streets leading to the house, and that Madame Zaghloul was, during that period, kept a prisoner in her house, and no man, woman, or child was allowed in; whether the armed guard were acting on instructions from the British military authorities; and, if so, if he will say on what ground this action was taken against Madame Zaghloul?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The only information on this incident I have is that, as a precautionary measure on the part of the police responsible for public order, a guard was placed on Zaghloul Pasha's house from the 20th March to 23rd March to prevent unauthorised persons from entering.

Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks why Madame Zaghloul was kept in the house, and not allowed to leave?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am quite prepared to leave these matters to the Egyptian Government.

Captain GEE: Is it not a fact that this guard was put on this house at the request of the members of this gentleman's family and for the safety of the family?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information further than that which I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEETING (PROHIBITION).

Mr. SWAN: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a meeting was convened by the Egyptian delegation
under the presidency of His Highness Prince Youssef Kamal for 24th March to meet at the house of the late Sayed Abu Bakr Ratch Pasha: that more than 3,000 invitations to influential Egyptians and Europeans from all over Egypt were issued; that the object of the meeting was to discuss the Egyptian situation after the latest British declaration; that Prince Youssef Kamal was approached by the authorities with a view to inducing him not to preside over the meeting; that he refused to abandon the meeting; and that the authorities at the last moment prohibited the meeting; whether a political meeting in the form of a dinner, held at the Continental Hotel, Cairo, on 26th March, was allowed to take place; whether the Members of the Cabinet with other officials attended and Sarwat Pasha himself made a long political speech; and, if so, why some Egyptians are permitted to express their views on the political situation of their country and others prohibited from doing so?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the meeting mentioned in the first part of the question was prohibited by order of the Egyptian Prime Minister. It is for the Egyptian Government to decide what meetings may be held without detriment to public order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN.

Mr. SWAN: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that representations to Egypt have been made by Sudanese to include them in the coming elections for an Egyptian Assembly on the ground that the Nile Valley is indivisible, and that the Sudan is part of Egypt; and whether the wishes of the Sudanese will be taken into consideration?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no official information as to the first part of the question. It is well-known that the majority of the Sudanese people do not desire incorporation in the Egyptian State.

Mr. SWAN: Can my hon. Friend say wherein this request conflicts with the suggestion of independence in the recent Treaty?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information on the subject whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NEW BATTLESHIPS (LAYING DOWN).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now say if a decision has been come to as to the date of laying down the new battleships; and whether he can give a promise that one of these ships shall be built in Devonport dock yard?

Mr. FOOT: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new battleships will be built in the royal yards or in private yards; and, if in royal yards, will he give consideration to the claims of the Devonport dockyard?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): No decision has yet been reached as to the date for laying down the new battleships. Although the length of the new ships will be less than that of those projected before the Washington Conference, the width is approximately the same, and this would necessitate very extensive alterations to the slip if one of these ships were built in any of the royal yards. Under present circumstances such large additional expenditure cannot be considered.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the fact that there are so many unemployed in Devonport, would it not be a useful scheme to enlarge one of these slips so as to give employment to these men now out of work?

Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that a vast amount of national capital is sunk in the dockyard which ought to be utilised, but cannot properly be utilised until this small expenditure is incurred?

Mr. AMERY: I fully realise both of these considerations, but, in connection with the question previously raised, I think I made it clear that, in present circumstances, it would not be desirable to incur that expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCKYAEDS (BONUS).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say why the extra increase of bonus to 75 per cent. is applied only to established men and hired men discharged from the Royal dockyards
since March, 1920; whether he is aware that the concession has been made retrospective for established men from March, 1915, but not for hired men; and can he explain why this distinction was made?

Mr. AMERY: The two cases referred to by my hon. Friend are not alike. A pensioned established employé is still connected with the Service. This is not so, however, in the case of a hired employé, whose contract is definitely terminated when he is discharged with a gratuity.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIPS (NON-INFLAMMABLE GAS).

Captain BOWYER: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the invention of a process for manufacturing a non-inflammable gas, of approximately the same lift as hydrogen, called currenium; and, in view of the fact that it is reported that this gas can be produced much more cheaply than helium, will the Admiralty take the necessary steps to obtain full information, in view of the greatly increased value that the practical application of such a gas would make to airship development?

Mr. AMERY: The Admiralty is watching progress in experiments with non-inflammable substitutes for hydrogen as a filling for airships, but the active pursuit of this question will no doubt be considered by the Secretary of State for Air, should he decide to re-establish an airship service.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the Air Ministry have provided for the requirements of the Navy suitable machines for flying on and off the decks of the aircraft carriers, and whether a sufficient number of machines have been ordered by the Air Ministry to meet all reasonable naval requirements?

Mr. AMERY: The problem of flying aircraft from and on to carriers is still in its infancy. Consequently, of the aircraft supplied up to the present by the Air Ministry, some types have been more successful than others. So far as the larger types are concerned, the matter is still in the experimental stage, but it is hoped that the new machines now under construction by the Air Ministry will prove suitable. With regard to the second
part of the question, the provision of aircraft to meet naval needs which was originally agreed on between the two Departments for this financial year, has recently been considerably reduced as the result of the further economies required of the Air Ministry by His Majesty's Government.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the Navy secure enough aeroplanes for the carriers now under construction?

Mr. AMERY: That would come into the Estimates for subsequent years.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAVE (RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he is aware that, owing to the withdrawal of the reduced rate charges for men of the forces in uniform by the railway companies, many men, especially married men with families, stationed at Rosyth, will be unable to take advantage of their Easter leave; and what action the Admiralty propose to take?

Mr. AMERY: I regret the hardship involved, but I have nothing to add at present to my reply of the 10th April to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious discontent which exists among the men in regard to this matter?

Mr. AMERY: I am quite aware there is discontent.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that a Motion which I put down the other night—an Amendment to the Railway Bill—was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker; and will he kindly communicate to the railway companies that decision of Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to persuade them to give these men proper facilities?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIZE MONEY.

Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the date when it is proposed to commence the second distribution of prize money and the method of distribution to be adopted; whether he can ensure that the first distribution will be made to those officers
and men who are entitled and have been demobilised; and can he yet state the amount of one share?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a definite statement as to when the distribution of prize money will take place?

Mr. AMERY: Payment of the final distribution of prize money will begin before the end of the current month. The method of distribution will be the same as in the first distribution, except that payments to the Fleet and to demobilised officers and men will take place at the same time. The amount of a share is not yet known.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a date?

Mr. AMERY: Yes; before the and of the month.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That was the answer given on the last occasion. What I want to know is the actual day.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTGUARD (PAYMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiralty had decided to substitute weekly payment for monthly payment in the coastguard on 1st April, 1922; whether this decision has been altered; whether he is aware of the very great inconvenience and hardship caused to many of the men, who are in some cases left without any money, having relied on the promise of the Admiralty; and whether he can make any statement?

Mr. AMERY: Owing to the re-organisation of the Home Commands in the near future, it has been found necessary to postpone the commencement of the general system of weekly payments. Orders to this effect were promulgated to the coastguard on the 1st April, and there appears to be no reason why any inconvenience or hardship should result.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand this arrangement is only postponed and that it will be adopted?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, it will be adopted?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.

Captain BOWYER: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the projected airship service to Australia and the Far East; and, in view of the value of such a fleet of airships with bases throughout the Empire as an auxiliary reconnaissance force in time of war, what is the attitude of the Admiralty to this scheme?

Mr. AMERY: The Admiralty view on the question of the airship service has already been given in this House. We viewed with regret the decision, for financial reasons, to abandon the existing airship service. That airships, if available in sufficient numbers, would be of great value in naval warfare is undoubted, and the possession in any future war of a considerable number of these craft would certainly be of importance to the Empire. Any development, therefore, of airships for commercial purposes would be welcomed by the Admiralty. The exact manner in which they would be used in war would depend on the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — D.P. BATTERY COMPANY, BAKEWELL.

Mr. C. WHITE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the action of the D.P. Battery Company, Bakewell, who, when discharging men from their employ, almost invariably make complaints against them to the Employment Exchanges of misconduct; whether, in all these cases, the charges have been found by the court of referees to be quite unfounded; and whether, as in these cases a considerable amount of expense is incurred by the State, he will take such steps as are necessary to put an end to this practice?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The complaints referred to are, I presume, the replies made by the firm to the inquiry which is invariably made by my Department as to the reason why an applicant for benefit lost his last employment, and which is an essential step for safeguarding the Unemployment Fund. I have no reason to suppose that these replies have been given by the firm otherwise than in good faith. In certain cases on which an appeal from the insurance officer's decision was made to the court of referees, but not in all, the
decision of the court was that the ground of discharge was not such as to disqualify the applicant for benefit.

Mr. WHITE: In the majority of the cases was that so?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Speaking quite offhand, I think it was five or six out of eight.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON HOSPITAL (WOMEN STUDENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the report that the authorities of the London Hospital propose to restrict their medical teaching to men students; whether the hospital receives any assistance by way of grant from the public funds; whether such grant is made with or without conditions as to its employment; and whether, seeing that the restriction of medical teaching to male students is neither beneficial to the public health nor in agreement with the principle upon which grants from public funds to quasi-private organisations are made, he will say whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The only payments made to the London Hospital from the Ministry of Health Vote are in respect of the treatment of specific diseases. No part of the grant made by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission is applicable to the expenditure of the Medical School. I understand that in the opinion of the University Grants Committee, who make certain grants to the medical school, the question of requiring a particular school to admit women students would only arise if facilities for university education in medicine of qualified women students were inadequate. This situation has not arisen in London University.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SERVICE FLATS).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision in the High Court in the ease of Nye v. Davis; whether he is aware that this decision will adversely affect thousands of
occupants of London flats who, for the convenience of the owners of the flat, have to receive the services of an employé of the owners for such purposes as carrying up coals, etc.; that in many cases owners, believing that henceforth their flats are in consequence of these services excluded from the operations of the Rent Restrictions Act, have already threatened to increase rents; and if he can yet say whether he will introduce a Bill amending the Act to protect the occupants of such flats from the effects of the High Court judgment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My right hon. Friend cannot add anything to the answer which he gave the hon. Member on Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he cabled to the Prime Minister of Australia a few days ago accepting responsibility on behalf of His Majesty's Government for a proportion of the interest upon a loan to be raised by the, Australian Government for the settlement of British persons in that Dominion; whether he will say what the amount of the loan will be, and the proportion of interest payable by the Imperial Government; and whether he will give a short description of the terms of the scheme and to what State or States in Australia it will be applicable?

Mr. AMERY: The question of financial co-operation in schemes of settlement and migration is under discussion with the Commonwealth Authorities, but no decision has yet been taken. I hope to give a full explanation of the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards cooperation with the Oversea Government in this matter on the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN DEBTS.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that legislation is contemplated, or has been passed, in Germany which declares that
where debts are owed by a company in Germany which is controlled by Allied interests outside Germany, and the same are paid under Article 296 of the Treaty of Peace, the full difference of the exchange shall be charged to that company; whether a German company controlled in Germany is exempt from such charge; and whether, since this measure is a direct infringement of Article 276 (c) of the Treaty, which states that Germany must not subject Allied nationals to any charge other or higher than those imposed on her own nationals, representations will be made to the German Government on the subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, the German Government contend that the valorisation of their debts is an obligation imposed upon debtors by the Treaty, and is not, therefore, an infringement of the Article referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN CONTRACTS.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Peace Treaty makes any provision for compensation or reparation of Allied nationals who made contracts with Germans before the War in cases where, those contracts being dissolved by Article 299 of the Treaty, the German contracting party is now free to compete with the Allied national even to the extent of using the firm name or any other advantages which result from the contract?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. I am not certain that I understand exactly the circumstances to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but where a contract between an Allied national or German national is dissolved in accordance with Article 299 of the Treaty, the German would appear to have lost any right which he might have had under the contract to use the name of the Allied national.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA AND HUNGARY (BOUNDARY COMMISSION).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Boundary Commission now considering the frontier
between Rumania and Hungary have received recently any fresh instructions from the Allied Governments; whether the conditions laid down in the letter of M. Millerand to the Hungarian Government in the early part of 1920 still holds; and whether the Boundary Commission are precluded from, or have decided against, considering the retrocession of any of the three towns of Arad, Nagyvarad, and Szatmarnementi to Hungary, of which the populations are said to be overwhelmingly Hungarian?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The latest general instructions to the Hungarian Boundary Commissioners were issued in August, last. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the retrocession to Hungary of the three towns named would be quite inconsistent with the Treaty of Peace, and cannot therefore be entertained.

Lord R. CECIL: Are the Boundary Commissioners unable to consider a modification of the boundary which would involve that change by reason of specific instructions being given to them; and, if so, will those instructions be presented to the House, so that the House may have an opportunity of considering them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will inquire into the latter point. My recollection is that in M. Millerand's letter it was not contemplated that so large a rectification would take place as that mentioned by my Noble Friend.

Lord R. CECIL: Is not that a matter for the Boundary Commissioners themselves to consider whether it comes in the terms of M. Millerand's letter, and not that fresh instructions should be given by the Allies in regard to this matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will have that point considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATION DUTIES.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 101.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain why parcels advised by the officers of His Majesty's Customs at Grimsby under Customs No. B28/34, 23/46, etc., on which reparation duties were paid to his collector on the 24th March last, have not been delivered; and, if so, in view of the impediment to business caused by these delays, will he take steps either
to increase the staff or to improve the system and so prevent these delays and losses to the business community?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I am causing inquiries to be made into this matter, and will communicate to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PROPERTY, GERMANY (CLAIMS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 107.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total assets realised by the liquidation and sequestration of property of German nationals in this country; the total amount of the claims made by British nationals in respect of their property in enemy territory; whether these claims have yet been met; if not, will he state the reason for the delay; and whether, in view of the fact that no claims by British nations for reparation can be met until the cost of the British Armies of Occupation has been discharged, the surplus, if any, of the fund first mentioned will be devoted to meeting reparation claims?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The total net proceeds realised by the liquidation and sequestration of German property in this country up to date are£31,030,886. With regard to the second, third and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 21st March to the hon. Member for Wimbledon. With regard to the last part, there is not at present any surplus.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-GERMAN AFRICAN COLONIES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the reply received from the American Government to the Allied representations regarding the ex-German African colonies has been communicated to the Secretary General of the League of Nations; whether the British Government propose to accept the modifications in the draft mandates suggested by the American Government; and whether the reply of the American Government may be published forthwith?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Note is now under consideration, and I
am not yet in a position to reply to the second and third parts of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF TRANSPORT.

Mr. HOGGE: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal who has been appointed as Minister of Transport?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to-day received His Majesty's gracious approval of the appointment of my Noble Friend Earl Crawford as Minister of Transport, in addition to his post as First Commissioner of Works. As Minister of Transport he will draw no salary.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LORD LIEUTENANT AND CHIEF SECRETARY.

Mr. HOGGE: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what are now the duties and emoluments of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and whether, now that the Irish Free State is in existence, it is proposed to discontinue the office?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is still in existence; if not, what office is now held by the right hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland; whether he is drawing any salary; and, if so, on what Vote is it charged?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is still in existence, and my right hon. Friend is still Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and is drawing the salary normally appropriated to his office which is charged on the Irish Office Vote, Class II, 42. The duties of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary respectively were enumerated in the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to my Noble Friend the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) on the 13th February, and by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Kenyon) on the 9th February. The duties falling to be performed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary are still too onerous to permit of the office being discontinued at present, but reference to the Estimates will show that provision has been made for its continu-
ance during not more than six months of the present financial year.

Mr. HOGGE: Does that apply to the Lord Lieutenant too? Can he not be dispensed with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no. The Crown must be represented in Ireland.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether beneficiaries having funds in the hands of the Public Trustee in Ireland have had or will have an opportunity of transferring their property to the Public Trustee in London before the responsibility of the British Government for such funds comes to an end?

Mr. YOUNG: This matter will receive due consideration. For the present, the Public Trustee, Ireland, has not been transferred to the Irish Government.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that he told me the matter was receiving consideration? Can he give me any idea when it will be finally considered, and dealt with?

Mr. YOUNG: It is impossible to make final arrangements until the question of transfer to the Irish Government arises, but I can assure the hon. and learned Member when that time does come, the considerations which he advances will, of course, be regarded as most important.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS AND AMMUNITION.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money and what quantity of arms and ammunition have been handed over or sold by the British Government to the Irish Provisional Government; whether any further payments or delivery of arms have been promised; whether any condition has been made with the Irish Provisional Government that they shall restore law and order in Southern Ireland within any given time;. and whether the British Government are taking any, and what, steps to recover the arms and ammunition recently stolen from one of their vessels on the coast of Cork?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): In reply to the first part of the question, 4,000 rifles, 2,200 revolvers, and 6 machine guns, to-
gether with corresponding amounts of ammunition have been handed over by the British Government to the Provisional Government. I have, with the approval of the Cabinet, given authority for further issues to be made as required. The reply to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative. In reply to the last part of the question, I have no doubt that the Provisional Government, who are far more nearly concerned in this matter than the British Government, are taking all possible steps to recover these arms. I am informed that since the Treaty was signed 60 rifles of those handed over to the Provisional Government have been lost by them, about 600 taken from the Royal Irish Constabulary and 380 from the Admiralty.

Viscount CURZON: Do these figures include the armoured cars which were turned over to the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: One of the armoured cars which was lent to the Provisional Government in connection with the Limerick disorders has passed out of its control. It is in the hands of people who are in a mutinous attitude towards the properly constituted authority in the country. But it has been dismantled and the essential parts of the mechanism removed.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman about the Provisional Government, but as to what steps the British Government were taking to recover their property taken from Cork?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We certainly are not going to take measures in the interior of Ireland to recover these goods.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Is anybody doing it for us? Are the armies of the Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Provisional Government are, naturally, trying to secure in their own hands and in the hands of their adherents all the weapons loose in Ireland at the present time. We must leave it to them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are they doing anything to get back the property stolen from our Government? What is the Provisional Government doing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As a matter of fact, the Provisional Government have, I think, certain grounds of complaint against us for having allowed, no doubt under very difficult circumstances, these things to pass out of the hands of the British Government into the hands of those who are, at least, as much enemies of the Provisional Government as they are of the British Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (STAFF).

Mr. KENNEDY: 61.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the total number of war pensions committee staff taken over by the Ministry in April, 1922; how many of these are ex-service and how many non-service; and how many on typing duties?

Major BARNSTON (for Mr. Macpherson): No members of the staffs of local war pensions committees have as yet been taken over by the Ministry. The actual transfers will be spread over several months, and will be effected as the new area offices are set up and the new committees appointed. My right hon. Friend will, of course, continue his present policy of giving preference to efficient ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER (PRICES).

Major KELLEY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the average shares in the retail cost of a pint of beer which are taken respectively by the Excise, the publican, and the brewer; and which of these three parties is the profiteer?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. For beer of the average gravity brewed in the early months of the current year and sold at 7d. a pint, the Excise Duty represents 3⅓d. per pint. The inquiries made in my Department lead to the conclusion that the division of the remainder is, approximately, 2d. for brewers' costs and profits and 1⅔d. for retailing expenses and profits. These proportions represent average conditions, not the charges on every kind of beer. I am unable to assist my hon. and gallant Friend in providing an answer to the last part of his question.

Major KELLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the brewer gets less than a half-penny a pint and the publican a little more than a half-penny, and therefore how is it possible to reduce it a penny a pint to the public without very great loss?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a question on Monday, made an approximate calculation that a penny a pint represented£30,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT).

Captain BOWYER: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, owing to reductions being made in the Employment Department, the result is that there are or will be a number of senior permanent civil servants redundant; will he state the number; and what is the intention in regard to these officials, in view of the fact that other Departments are also being reduced?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In pursuance of the policy of securing the utmost degree of economy in administration, I have recently been able to reduce the number of administrative areas of the Employment Department in Great Britain from nine to seven, and as a result a certain number of permanent officers will be rendered available for other duty. This change has only recently been effected and it is not possible to state, at the. moment, the precise number of permanent officers who will be released. My intention is, however, to see that every officer who is released is appropriately employed on other duties in the Ministry—whether in a permanent or a temporary Department—and my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that, in order that this end may be secured, it will be necessary for me to terminate the appointments of a number of temporary officers.

Captain BOWYER: Can my right hon. Friend say in how much jeopardy those who are employed in the temporary Departments now stand, especially as regards the Appointments Branch and the Civil Liabilities Branch?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not quite followed my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to appoint these surplus officers to take over the work of those in the temporary Departments?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not take over, but it may very well be that some of my redundant officers may take the places of some of those in any Departments, temporary or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY BILL.

Major KELLEY: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his Department has received any protests from South Yorkshire local authorities or manufacturing interests against the Electricity Bill; and what progress has been made in preparing schemes for centralising the electricity supplies of that district?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The answer to the first portion of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second portion of the question, a scheme for the re-organisation of supply in the North-East Midlands electricity district, which includes the southern portion of Yorkshire, was submitted to the Electricity Commissioners at the end of June last year. A local Inquiry was fixed by the Commissioners for November last, but was deferred at the request of the promoters of the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOFT FRUIT (RAILWAY TRANSPORT).

Mr. KENNEDY: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that the London and South Western Railway Company have refused to accept an agreement entered into with other railway companies that vans with shelves should be provided for the transport of small packages of strawberries and other soft fruit; and whether, in view of the fact that this fruit when packed in tiers arrives in the market in a damaged condition owing to the oscillation of the train, he will approach the company in question and endeavour to get some arrangement made prior to the season commencing?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to an almost identical question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Colonel Sir A. Holbrook), of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK GOVERNMENT (LOAN).

Sir J. D. REES: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a proposal for a Greek loan is again before the Trades Facilities Committee; and whether any Government guarantee of financial assistance, direct or indirect, to the Greek Government is contemplated, other than the release of certain Greek revenues as security for a Greek loan which has already been granted?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and consequently the remainder of the question docs not arise.

Mr. L. MALONE: 99.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what securities have been assigned or promised to the Greek Government during the past two years?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not understand the hon. Member's question. No securities have been assigned or promised by His Majesty's Government to the Greek Government.

Mr. MALONE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what securities have been released?

Mr. YOUNG: I should require notice before I could give particulars.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman say that certain securities have been released by the British Government in order to enable the Greek Government to borrow upon them?

Mr. YOUNG: Certainly. I say the Greek Government has agreed with the British Government for the release of their lien over certain assets of the Greek Government in order to facilitate the borrowing operations of the Greek Government; but I shall require notice before I can give particulars of the extent or nature of those assets.

Mr. MALONE: Before these loans were released, did we make any inquiries as to
what the money would be required for, or did we make any stipulations?

Mr. YOUNG: To the best of my knowledge the only understanding was that as much as possible of the money the Greek Government was to obtain from private members on the London market was to be spent in this country, but, as hon. Members know, these negotiations were a failure.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate why what was apparently so exceptional a favour was shown to the Greek Government?

Mr. MALONE: Was it definitely said that this money was not to be used to fight the enemy, the Turk, or anyone else?

Mr. YOUNG: I think I have given the whole understanding arising out of the matter.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can I ask my hon. Friend, in view of the very well-known established rule of international law that a neutral country must not lend money to one of two belligerents, whether precautions were taken that this money was not to be used for warlike purposes?

Viscount CURZON: Was this decision the decision of the British Government alone, or taken in conjunction with our Allies?

Mr. YOUNG: I shall require notice of that question

Major BARNES: 109.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when the Government consented to the release of certain securities for the purpose of facilitating the raising of a loan by the Greek Government in this country, any information was before it as to the purposes to which the loan would be applied; and, if so, if he will say what they were?

Mr. YOUNG: The only understanding was that, if the Greek Government raised a loan on the London market, as large a proportion as possible would be spent on the purchase of British goods.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSION, ABERTILLERY.

Mr. G. BARKER: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the appeal by the pension officer at Abertillery
against the Local Pension Committee's decision to grant a pension to Elizabeth Rigby, No. 1,719 in the pension officer's register, will be heard and the decision given; and what are the grounds for the great delay in this case, seeing that the claimant was 70 years of age on 23rd September, 1921, and her claim was sanctioned on 21st February, 1922?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The papers relating to this appeal have been referred back to the Local Pension Committee, and it is hoped that it may be practicable to give a decision very shortly after their return.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (GRANTS).

Mr. G. BARKER: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, with reference to the terms and conditions of grants to voluntary hospitals as approved by His Majesty's Treasury, he will modify the conditions of paragraph 7, which stipulates that grants made by the commission are to be applied wholly to maintenance and in no case to capital expenditure, so that hospitals in course of erection and whose authorities are in financial difficulties may be able to appeal to the commission for financial assistance to complete the work they have in hand?

Sir A. MOND: The Government decided against the proposal of Lord Cave's Committee for a grant in aid of capital expenditure on hospitals on the ground that the hospitals were not paying their way on the existing buildings and that it was unwise to build while costs were so high. I can hold out no hope of reconsideration of this decision in present financial conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

SCHEDULED ARTICLES.

Mr. KILEY: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decisions of the Referee that a number of chemicals and other articles have been improperly placed in the lists of dutiable articles under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will take steps to reimburse the complainants the costs to which they have been subjected in
establishing the fact that the responsible officers of the Board of Trade acted improperly in placing such articles on the list?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The machinery set up by the Act for testing the correctness of the lists issued by the Board of Trade was specially designed with the view of eliminating unnecessary expense, and the rules of procedure laid down by the Referee were framed with a similar view. Complainants, who incurred heavy expenses, did so on their own initiative, and I am therefore not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. KILEY: But does the Board of Trade realise that only those cases where expert legal assistance was forthcoming have been rescinded, while other cases where legal and expert assistance had not been sought have been retained?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is fully realised, but that does not affect the answer that I gave, that the process of adjudication was designed so as to inflict the minimum of expense on applicants, and the Board of Trade have themselves consistently throughout followed that rule, for instance, by the employment only of junior counsel, instead of senior.

Mr. KILEY: But as the Board of Trade improperly put them on this list, why should the trader be penalised for the mistakes that the Board of Trade have made?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is a subsequent question dealing with that point.

CUSTOMS (CLEARANCES).

Mr. C. WHITE: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that trade is being handicapped by the delays and damage caused by the examination and sampling of goods by the Customs authorities to ascertain whether such goods are liable to duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether, to facilitate trade, he will take steps to ensure that the shipping documents and, if necessary, a sworn declaration by the importer shall be sufficient proof to enable the Customs authorities to give a quick release and delivery?

Mr. YOUNG: As I have frequently stated, pending the final decision, immediate delivery of goods may be obtained on a deposit being made with the Customs Department to secure any duty which may prove to be chargeable, and I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question. It must not be assumed that I accept the allegation contained in the opening part of the question.

Major M. WOOD: Is it not a fact that this system of deposit increases the amount of capital required to carry on business, and is not that a bad system, in view of the scarcity of capital to-day?

Mr. YOUNG: Undoubtedly the necessity of making a deposit may in some cases—I do not think in all—increase the amount of capital required in business. On the other hand, it is a very convenient method of dealing with the situation.

Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one case no less than£600 was required as a deposit, and it took the applicant four months to get his money back?

Mr. YOUNG: I am always willing to investigate any case if the hon. Member will give particulars.

Dr. MURRAY: Did he get interest in that case?

CONTAINERS.

Mr. KILEY: 104.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, when collecting duties on commodities liable to duty, His Majesty's Customs demand duty on the casks, barrels, and other containers as well as on the commodities themselves; and can he state if the duty levied is at the same rate on the cask as it is on the contents?

Mr. YOUNG: No duty is charged on casks, barrels or other containers as such, but in the case of goods dutied on an ad valorem, basis the statutory value for duty is the price which an importer would give for the goods delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond at the port of importation. This price would include the cost of packing and of the containers, if any.

Mr. KILEY: On what ground is duty levied on the cask when there is no separate duty levied on the article?

Mr. YOUNG: On the interpretation of the Statute.

PACKACE OPENING.

Mr. C. WHITE: 106.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can explain on what grounds His Majesty's Customs make a charge for opening packages to ascertain whether the goods are liable to duty; and on what bases these charges are made?

Mr. YOUNG: No such charge is made by the Customs Department.

Mr. WHITE: If I bring a case to the notice of the hon. Gentleman will he reconsider it?

Mr. YOUNG: I should be most happy to do so, though I imagine the hon. Member is very likely to find that these charges have been made by the Port and Harbour Authorities concerned.

POST PARCELS (FEE).

Mr. KILEY: 105.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Post Office Authorities are now levying a fee of 6d., in addition to ordinary charges, upon every post parcel which passes through their hands on which the Customs authorities collect duty, and that in many cases the duty only amounts to two or three pence; and whether he will seek powers to exempt from these delays and costs all packages on which the amount of duty to be collected does not exceed 1s.?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have been asked to answer this question. The amount of duty raised on a parcel affords no indication of the cost to the Post Office of clearing it through the Customs; and as the fee of 6d. does not cover the average cost of the services performed by the Post Office on behalf of the addressees in clearing dutiable parcels through the Customs and collecting the duty, I regret that I can find no justification for the concession for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. KILEY: Do I understand from that reply that if there is an amount of duty
to be collected the Post Office charge 6d. for their trouble?

Mr. PEASE: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman desires the remission of the Customs duty or the Post Office fee. As mentioned in my reply, the amount received in fees does not cover the cost of the service.

Mr. KILEY: By what power do you make this charge over and above the ordinary postage? Are you entitled to do it?

Mr. PEASE: Yes, certainly; but I must ask for notice of the question in order that I may give an exact answer.

DYESTUFFS.

Major M. WOOD: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the principal calico printers in this country cannot maintain their export trade unless they can buy high-grade dyes essential for their products at prices at least approximately as low as the prices paid by their competitors abroad; and whether he will see that the prices at which dyes received by the Government in payment of reparation are sold in this country are not higher than the prices at which similar dyes can be obtained by dye-users in Germany, America, and other countries?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In reply to the first part of the question, I would point out that the cost of dyes is only one element, and, in most cases, not the principal element, and in the cost of producing the goods referred to, the prices at which German reparation dyes are sold are fixed after consultation with the manufacturing and consuming interests concerned, and approximate as closely as practicable to current market values. The suggestion, however, contained in the second part of the question would not be practicable.

MINING OPERATIONS, ABERTILLERY.

Mr. G. BARKER: 85.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has seen a report of the proceedings of the Abertillery Urban District Council for 27th March,
1922, in which it was stated in the Gas Committee's report that the cost of repairing leakages during the month caused by subsidence was£33 0s. 11d., besides a large quantity of gas being lost; that a councillor stated that during the past year repairs to his house caused by subsidence had cost him over£60 for damage, over which he had no control and no legal remedy, and that during the past 10 years he believed it had cost the council over£10,000 for damage to their buildings, water and gas mains, and the breaking up of the roads, and that at the beginning of that council's term of office no less a sum than£500 was put in the estimates to deal with subsidence; that the council's accountant estimated that but for subsidence they could have reduced the price of gas 2s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet; that in Glandwr Street, Abertillery, some of the houses, through subsidence, have the appearance of having been subjected to shell fire; will he, therefore, send a representative of His Majesty's Government to this district to investigate the conditions and report; and will he bring in the Bill long overdue to remedy this deplorable state of things arising from subsidence as a result of mining operations?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The Report referred to in this question has not previously been brought to my notice. My Department are in consultation with the Ministry of Health on the possibility of introducing any legislation to deal with surface damage from mining operations, but I am unable at present to say when such legislation is likely to be introduced or what form it might take.

Mr. BARKER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered one part of my question. Will he send someone representing the Government down to this district to investigate the conditions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which should be asked of the Minister of Health, as the point arises out of the local authorities' position, and has nothing to do with me.

Mr. BARKER: Will the hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister in reference to that? It is very important.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just said in my answer that I am doing so.

FOREIGN TRAWLING, MORAY FIRTH.

Mr. JAMESON: 90.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that Danish and Norwegian trawlers frequently fish in the Moray Firth, in defiance of the Order prohibiting such fishing, and that no prosecution of such foreign trawlers has been made; that native trawlers axe subjected to heavy penalties for this offence; and will he take steps to have the law enforced against foreign as well as native fishermen?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): My right hon Friend is aware that foreign trawlers occasionally visit the Moray Firth, but none of Norwegian or Danish nationality have been observed for some years. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to international considerations, the course proposed by my hon. and learned Friend presents grave difficulties, and my right hon. Friend is not in a position to give the undertaking which he desires.

Major WOOD: Was not one of those foreign skippers convicted and imprisoned, and had to be released owing to representations made by the Foreign Office?

Mr. MURRAY: It is quite true that some years ago there was a conviction in the Scottish Courts.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Have the Government been in consultation with the Foreign Office with regard to the whole question of the Moray Firth?

Mr. MURRAY: I understand so.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not the case that if the German trawlers catch fish in the Moray Firth they can land it in this country free?

Mr. MURRAY: The answer is in the negative, if fishing within prohibited waters under the Statute of 1909.

Mr. JAMESON: May fishermen fish in the Moray Firth in the meantime?

Mr. KILEY: Is there a special mark on the fish which is caught in German waters?

Mr. MURRAY: I must have notice of that question.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Major KELLEY: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government have bought, or are contemplating buying, any licensed houses in the Control Board area of the Carlisle district?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers which I have lately given on this subject, the effect of which is that no acquisitions of licensed premises in this area have been made recently, and none is in immediate contemplation.

INCOME TAX AND CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately the amount of Income Tax, Super-tax, and Corporation Profits Tax, respectively due to be paid for the last financial year, but which remained unpaid on 1st April?

Mr. YOUNG: The approximate amounts of Income Tax and Super-tax estimated to be due to be paid but not paid by 31st March, 1922, are:

Income Tax (excluding the instalment due on 1st July, 1922),£110,000,000.
Super-tax,£24,000,000.
The amount of Corporation Profits Tax in assessment but unpaid (less sums shown due to be remitted) at 31st March, 1922, is approximately£12,000,000.

STAMP DUTY (STOCKS AND SHARES).

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. GIDEON MURRAY:

97. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present Stamp Duty of 1 per cent, on transfers of stocks and shares is a serious deterrent to the transfer of this class of property and is disproportionate as com-
pared with the duty leviable on the transfer of other property and commodities; and whether, in view of the fact that the reduction of this charge would lead to increased business and a freer exchange of stocks and shares, thus removing one of the present clogs in the wheels of trade, he will consider in the next Budget the desirability of reducing this Stamp Duty to a lower level and, if possible, to its former level of one-half of 1 per cent.?

Mr. MURRAY: Before putting this question, may I ask, on a point of Order, why it is that questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer come on the Order Paper so long after the questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and in future will you say, Sir, whether it is better to put down questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in order to have an answer at an earlier stage of the proceedings?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the list in the "No" Lobby, he will see the order in which questions are arranged.

Mr. YOUNG: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot anticipate the Budget statement. He must not, however, be taken as admitting either that the transfer duty of 1 per cent, is a serious deterrent to business, or that the reduction of the duty would necessarily of itself lead to an increase of business.

COMPANY REGISTRATION FEE.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 98.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of trade and the formation of new business enterprises, which are essential to the maintenance and development of Great Britain and her Empire, he will consider the desirability of reducing the present heavy Company Registration Fee, now standing at 1 per cent, of the capital?

Mr. YOUNG: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Stamp Duty on the capital of companies will be considered along with other taxes in connection with the forthcoming Budget.

EX-SERVICE WOMEN.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 100.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any ex-service women who have received injuries in the War have been refused the right of approach to the Investigation Board set up to consider the claims of ex-service men in a similar position who failed in the examination by reason of their disability?

Mr. YOUNG: The Investigating Board can only deal with cases submitted to it by heads of Departments under paragraphs 36–39 of the Third Report of Lord Lytton's Committee; but its procedure applies equally to ex-service men and ex-service women, and I am aware of no discrimination between ex-service personnel on grounds of sex.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 102.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a disabled overseas ex-service woman in the Ministry of Labour has been informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that she may not sit for the forthcoming special establishment examination for ex-service persons under the Lytton Report, and that other ex-service women have been similarly informed that this examination is for men only; and whether, in view of the fact that the Lytton Committee Report distinctly lays down that ex-service men and women should be treated on an absolutely equal footing, and that the Government has adopted that Report, he can see his way to allowing the women concerned to sit for the ex-service men's examination in April, or to announce an early date for the further examination for women referred to in the Lytton Report for entry into the clerical class, so that these women may not be treated worse than home-service men?

Mr. YOUNG: The competition recently announced is for men only. Ex-service women who are similarly situated to the men for whom this competition is intended will be eligible to compete at the examination for the clerical class to be held, in accordance with the recommendations of paragraph 35 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee, for women who have been employed in posts above that of a Grade I temporary clerk. The regulations for this competition are at present under consideration.

IEAQ.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent ministerial crisis in Bagdad is now over; whether the vacant portfolios have been filled; whether the situation on the South-Western Euphrates frontier is still disturbed; and whether attacks on the shiah holy city of Kerbela and Nejef are threatening?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioner has not yet reported that the vacant portfolios have been filled. I expect to receive further information very shortly. The reply to the third and fourth parts of this question is in the negative.

MILK

Mr. G. THORNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the discontent that exists in the minds of the people in London against the rationing of milk in many parts; and if he can make any statement as to the result of the Conference on milk?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): As the hon. Member is probably aware, the Conference of representatives of milk producers and milk distributors was held at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries yesterday. The Conference lasted from 4.30 yesterday afternoon to 2 a.m. this morning, when I regret to say no decision was reached. But this meeting has been resumed this morning and I still hope it may be possible to come to an agreement. At the outset proposals were made for raising the price of milk to the public from 5d. to 6d. a quart during April, May, and June, for which period a price of 5d. has been announced. I stated to the Conference that the Government could not be a party to any such arrangement, and this decision was accepted. I think it is probable that the price may be raised in July, but this is a matter over which I have no control.
Accepting this basis, efforts were made to arrange for a more equitable distribution of the 1s. 8d. a gallon between the distributors and the farmers. The distributors, in their final offer, proposed the following prices to be paid to the pro-
ducers for milk delivered in London from areas outside the home counties:

April
…
10d. a gallon.


May
…
9d. a gallon.


June
…
 9d. a gallon.


July
…
9d. a gallon.


August
…
11d. a gallon.


September
…
1s. a gallon.

or an average of 10d. per gallon for the six months. This offer the representatives of the producers were not prepared to accept, since they are not willing to contract for a period of more than three months, and they asked for an average of 10d. for the first three months.

A statement will be sent to the Press after to-day's conference.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is my right hon. Friend or anyone from his Department acting as mediator in connection with the Conference now being held at the office of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir; throughout the Conference yesterday I was endeavouring to act as mediator. At the present time they are meeting among themselves, and I am prepared to go there as soon as my presence is required.

Mr. ROYCE: Does 10d. per gallon represent the net price, or does the producer have to pay the railway carriage?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is the price of milk outside the home counties delivered in London. The farmer, therefore, has to arrange to deliver the milk to the station, and pay the railway their freight.

Mr. MILLS: Is it not a fact that the Derbyshire farmers have been offered 3d. a quart by the wholesale dealers in milk?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think so.

Captain BOWYER: In Buckinghamshire the price is 3d. per gallon net.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There are of course a great many small dealers, who are not connected with these large organisations who met me yesterday, and I cannot answer for any individual offers which they may have made. Generally speaking, the offer has been 8d. per gallon for milk from outside the home counties delivered in London, and the proposal put forward by the distributors yesterday was that for six months the average price
should be 10d., which is an improvement from the producers' point of view of 2d. per gallon.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY:
48. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the upkeep and repair of roads, having special regard to the division of responsibility therefor between the State and local authorities, and to the equitable apportionment of the necessary taxation between various classes of road users.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether I shall have an opportunity of asking Question No. 48, which you did not call the second time round?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not usual on these occasions to call questions the second time round, except those addressed to Ministers who may be absent when questions are called the first time.

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Corporation of the City of Oxford of the sum of three thousand two hundred pounds, together with the amount of any costs which may appear to the Treasury to have been properly incurred by the Corporation in connection with the said abolition; and
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Corporation of the City of St. Albans of the sum of one thousand two hundred pounds
in connection with the abolition of rights and privileges under any Act of the present Session to abolish certain rights and privileges of the City of Oxford and of the City of St. Albans in connection with the sale of wine and the granting of licences therefor, and for purposes incidental thereto—(King's Recommendation signified)—Wednesday, 26th April.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

NOTICES OF MOTION.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE, ETC.).

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the unsatisfactory working of the State Management of the Liquor Traffic, not only financially but socially, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Sir A. Holbrook.]

WOMEN POLICE.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of Women Police, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. G. Thorne.]

LANCASHIRE COTTON TRADE.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of the condition of the Lancashire Cotton Trade, and the effect upon it of the Indian Import Duties, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. T. Shaw.]

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to reconstitute the House of Lords.
It may seem almost futile to introduce a Bill like this dealing with such a titanic question as the reform of the House of Lords under the Ten Minutes' Rule, but needs must when the devil drives. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I do not go into any details, but I will merely endeavour to adumbrate the purport of my Bill, and explain the principle that underlies it. May I ask the House to concede to me two axioms. In the first place, that a strong, virile, and representative Second Chamber is necessary and vital to good government; and, secondly, that a hereditary system is looked upon as an anachronism by the great majority of the electorate to-day. If that is so, then two things are certain. One is that the House of Lords as at present constituted must go. It is no good mending or patching it. You cannot put new wine into old bottles, and you cannot put back the hands of the clock. Therefore I say that what we have to do is to create another Second Chamber instead of the present obsolete Chamber. The Bill I am moving has that object in view. It endeavours to build up a Second Chamber more thoroughly representative and more in tune with the
democratic spirit of the age. If my Bill commends itself to hon. Members, however faulty it may be, if the principle commends itself to the House, from that moment the portals of the Second Chamber shall never again fly open to the Sesame of birth or to the key of plutocracy, and it will only open to the Sesame of merit. My Bill endeavours to substitute for an aristocracy of birth, tainted by the poison of plutocracy, an aristocracy of brains. The Bill, in one word, proposes that the cumbersome number of 730, which, I think, is the present strength of the House of Lords, should be reduced to 300, apart from the Princes of the Blood. The functions of the Second Chamber will be to initiate legislation, to delay legislation, to amend and review legislation, and to reject legislation. Should the Second Chamber reject a Bill which was presented by the popular Chamber three times, it is then referred to a Committee of the two Houses of equal numbers, and I suggest, with great respect, that you, Sir, preside over that Committee. If that Bill be not carried by a majority of three to two, it is then referred to the people, either through a referendum or a general election.
Just one word before I sit down about the method of reconstruction. The Bill provides that in December, 1922, the Lords as at present constituted shall cease to exist, hut not before they have selected, by a process of self-elimination or a survival of this fittest, 100 of their most brilliant Members to the nucleus of a Second Chamber. These Peers are to be chosen for personal merit alone. Then on 1st January, 1923, the nucleus of the Second Chamber comes into existence. It consists of the Princes of the Blood and of these 100 selected Members. They are instructed by the Bill to add to their number 200, and, in order to find these 200, to search the length and breadth of the land for the genius and intellect of the race. Hon. Members may laugh, but I presume they would not dislike an aristocracy of brains. In this manner, the Second Chamber might well be termed "an aristocracy of brains," for not only would it consist of men versed in the science of statecraft and the laws of government, but every class of calling and profession in the country would be represented—the Army, Navy, labour, county councils, the sciences, the arts,
the Press, commerce, and industry. They would all be represented, and represented by men of outstanding merit. In such a way, you would get an open, virile strong representative Second Chamber.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reconstitute the House of Lords," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lowther, Major Christopher Lowther, Sir Cecil Beck, Bear-Admiral Sueter, and Sir Thomas Poison.

HOUSE OF LOBDS REFORM BILL,

"to reconstitute the House of Lords," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LOEDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the supply of Electricity." [Electricity (Supply) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Chancery Lunatics." [Lunacy Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal section two of The Gaming Act, 1835." [Gaming Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company and the undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation to abandon the Bradford Canal and to sell or dispose of the site thereof and of the property connected therewith; and for other purposes." [Bradford Canal (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]

Consolidation Bills,

That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet in Committee Room C on Wednesday, the 3rd of May, at Twelve o'clock.

Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords],

That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, with a request that the same may be returned.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message as relates to the place and time of meeting of the Committee be now considered.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BRADFORD CANAL (ABANDONMENT) BILL.

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL,

"to confirm an Agreement made between the Pneumatic Despatch Company, Limited, and the Postmaster-General for the acquisition by the Postmaster-General of a certain tube running between St. Martin's-le-Grand, in the City of London, and Eversholt Street, in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. KELLAWAY; supported by Mr. Pike Pease; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Orders of the Day — EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Wednesday, 26th April."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

12 N.

Mr. HOGGE: I want to raise a point as to the form of this Motion which has been altered inside very recent years. I have been in the House only 10 years, and it has been done certainly inside that time. If we pass this Motion in this form, it means that when we begin to debate on the Motion for the Adjournment that any moment any Member may move a count, and those Members who wish to draw and raise questions lose their opportunity, whereas, if the Motion be in the ordinary form, "That this House do now adjourn," it is the duty of the Government to maintain a House in order that private Members may raise their particular points. It may be said, and it has been said on other occasions, that it is the duty of those who are interested in those questions to keep a House for their discussion. There are two arguments against that. The Lord Privy Seal will recognise the first at once. When asked to provide opportunities for discussion, he frequently replies that Members will have an opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment. Private Members have very few opportunities of raising any question, and, if the Leader of the House invites them to raise questions on the Adjournment, I consider that it is the duty of the Government to keep a House to enable Members to do so. It only means the attendance of 100 Members, 100 Members being required to closure any Debate.

Commander BELLAIRS: We are not bound to stay.

Mr. HOGGE: I am quite clear about that, but I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend, who had so much difficulty yesterday in getting a question raised in which he was interested as a private Member, should suggest that any Member should leave before his duties are completed. The other argument is this. It so happens that in this Parliament I belong to a group of Members who are not numerically strong, and are
therefore unable to keep a House. That may be fortunate for other sections of Members, but I am not making my point from that view. I am making it from the point of view that there are such small parties in this House—and there are other parties smaller than our party— [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, one has just walked up the Floor. However, my point is this: if it so happens that a party is not in a position to keep a House it should be the duty of the Government to keep it. I suggest that the Leader of the House, who has every confidence in the House of Commons, will agree that the rules of the House are not abused by Members generally, and will therefore be willing to revert to the former and more simple Resolution.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Would it not be possible to take the general discussion on the subjects hon. Members desire to raise on this Motion, and in that way get rid of the whole difficulty?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, not at all. The only Question before the House is the day to which the House shall adjourn when it rises.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am profoundly surprised at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend opposite. When he becomes responsible for keeping the House on the part of the Government, I doubt whether he will volunteer to do so on occasions when it is not necessary. Unless we pass a Motion of this kind, the House must go on sitting until the discussion is exhausted. Otherwise hon. Members will merely be brought back to-morrow at the usual hour to take up the discussion again. I do not think the House would desire that. There is no difficulty in keeping a House so long as the question before it interests any reasonable section of Members, but there have been occasions in the past where virtually everybody has desired to get away, and yet, owing to the fact that the Government has not kept a hundred Members present, the discussion has been prolonged until a very late hour of the evening by one or two Members, to the great inconvenience of all other Members. I do not wish to interfere with the rights of minorities, but I would point out that majorities are entitled to a little consideration, especially in these days, when the strain of Parliamentary life is so
great, and its sittings are so constant and prolonged. There is one other observation I will make. The hon. Member appears to be under the impression that the House can be counted out at any moment as soon as this is carried.

Mr. HOGGE: After 4 o'clock.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, not until after 4 o'clock. Accordingly, if we dispose of this Motion at once, as we may very well do, we shall then have four hours during which the House cannot be counted out, and we shall also have further time during which it need not be counted out, if 40 Members have sufficient interest in the matter under discussion to remain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Wednesday, 26th April."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Mr. ASQUITH: The House, in the course of ten minutes, and in a holiday mood, has already taken the first step towards the abolition of the House of Lords. I think it may not be inappropriate if I take advantage of this Motion to bring it down to a much humbler level, and to pass in a very brief review some of the features of the working and administration of an Act which has now been in operation for six months, and which has the statutory title of "The Safeguarding of Industries Act." It has been, I think, a luckless Measure both in its origin and in its later history. It was stamped from the beginning with the marks of pre-natal or, at any rate, congenital infirmity. It had a dubious pedigree. It was, we all remember, the nursling of a rather stony-hearted foster-mother, and it struggled with great difficulty over the threshold of Parliamentary life. Now it has come into the outer world it is encountering even greater difficulties in getting on its legs. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who has had the ostensible responsibility for this piece of legislation throughout, and who is now actually responsible for its administra-
tion, when he comes to write his memoirs may, I suggest to him, say of this Act what Grattan once said of the Independent Irish Parliament,
I rocked its cradle; I followed its hearse.
No Measure so recently carried, by such large majorities in Parliament, has ever been so forlorn of friends. It is equally scouted by Free Traders and Protectionists, and, what is still more important, by the business community at large.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: No.

Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Member will forgive me if I express that as my opinion. I had the honour recently of attending a very large and representative gathering in the heart of the City of London of bankers, merchants, producers and many business firms——

Mr. SAMUEL: Not manufacturers.

Mr. ASQUITH: Yes and manufacturers, and these were in no sense party men, while of those who profess my own political opinions a comparatively small minority were present. The meeting passed with complete unanimity a resolution demanding the immediate disappearance of this Measure from the Statute Book. That example has been followed by not a few of the most important Chambers of Commerce in Manchester and other great towns—non-political bodies. I read a day or two ago, in a very able organ in the Press which represents the Die-hard Protectionists, this remarkable passage, which I think is well worth quoting:
What has the Government done to secure the home market for the British manufacturer?
What was the answer given to that? It was:
It has given us the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which we venture to describe as the worst Measure ever devised in a good cause.
That is the opinion of a Protectionist organ. It is almost a work of supererogation to attack with severity, and I shall not do so at any length, this friendless, attenuated, meagre, but all the same, mischievous instalment of protective legislation. I wish, however, to call attention, to some extent for the purpose of getting information from the right hon. Gentleman, to one or two of its
features—features which have become clear since the Act was put into practical operation. I will refer first to Part I, the part which deals with what are supposed to be key industries. As the House is aware, there is a Schedule enumerating in general terms the categories of industries which fall under that denomination, and a discretionary power is given to the Board of Trade to issue lists, not to extend the Schedule, but to define with particularity the commodities which come within it. The Board of Trade has used its discretion, and it has issued a Schedule, which is one of the most formidable documents I have even seen. It enumerates some 6,000 commodities, or thereabouts, no less than 2,000 of which, or thereabouts, belong to various processes and products in the chemical trade. It is a monument of painstaking and misdirected research.
I have not the necessary technical knowledge to speak with first-hand authority, but I am told that the diligence of the right hon Gentleman's Department has unearthed quite a considerable number of strange products which have for years languished in subterranean obscurity. Some of them—indeed, I believe, a considerable number—are not being, and never have been, produced in this country; yet they are to be clothed, by the statutory list published by the Board of Trade, for the first time with the character of key industries. I am not surprised to hear that there are already some 400 or 500 appeals to the referees under the Act against various items in this list, and, of these 400 or 500 appeals, I think that up to the present moment—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—not more than 10 or 11 have been heard and decided. The list, I believe, was issued in December last, so that nearly four months have elapsed, and that is the amount of business that has been done. I need not point out, in passing, what a tremendous obstacle that is to the free course of business in the trades which are, or may be, affected by the application of this list. It is, perhaps, more interesting as showing the practical impossibility of administering legislation of this kind. I am not questioning in the least either the ability, the patience or the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but it is essential that the House and
the country should realise how impracticable is the task that has been placed upon them. I will give two illustrations.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Pawnbrokers Act, 1922.
2. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1922.
3. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.
4. Diseases of Animals Act, 1922.
5. East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Act, 1922.
6. Kenya Divorces (Validity) Act, 1922.
7. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1922.
8. Highland Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
9. Tees Conservancy Act, 1922.
10. Madras Railway Annuities Act, 1922.
11. Milford Docks Act, 1922.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Representation of the Laity (Amendment) Measure, 1922.

EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. ASQUITH: It is not easy to resume the thread of one's argument after an interruption which the forms of our Constitution permit, such as we have just experienced. I was not going to detain the House much longer, but was about to ask information from my right hon. Friend in reference to one or two illustrations of the difficulties which surround the administration of this Act, of which I am certain he must be fully conscious. Take the question which comes before the Referee in these various appeals, whether or not an article included in the Board of Trade list comes within the general scope of the Schedule. That is a question
which is always presented to the Referee. I have not the least doubt that the Referee, a man of very great capacity and experience, applies his mind with skill, and with an absolutely judicial temper, to the determination of this question whenever it comes before him, and I am not quarrelling with any of the decisions which he has given, but I do point out to the House—and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will agree—that experience has shown in) cases which have been before the Referee, particularly in regard to what are called fine chemicals and synthetic organic chemicals, the difficulty, which has been referred to over and over again in the judgments of the Referee himself, of giving any intelligent or consistent meaning to the term was very pronounced. In the very important case of cream of tartar and analogous substances, the Referee tells us, speaking of the evidence which was before him, that five chemists, men of considerable eminence, gave evidence, and they all defined the word "chemical" differently. When it came to the definition of what is a fine chemical, the difference of opinion was equally great. These eminent chemists are most expensive luxuries. They seem to have excelled even their traditional reputation in this particular instance by the variety and discrepancy of the views which they gave as to the meaning of what one would have assumed to be elementary scientific terms. Precisely the same set of difficulties arose, as the Referee points out, as to what is a synthetic organic chemical. That occurred in one of the most important cases that have been tried, the case of calcium carbide. I could give other instances, but it is not necessary. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to say whether he sees his way to introduce something in the nature of greater lucidity.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss on the Adjournment matters which require legislation?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, we can discuss only administration, and not legislation or the repeal of legislation on these occasions. There are at least ten rulings of Mr. Speaker Lowther and Mr. Speaker Gully on that point.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am confining myself to the administration of the Act. I made the assumption that the Act was to continue. These things do not require legislation.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask whether it would be possible to bring in something which would alter the Act.

Mr. ASQUITH: That is not the suggestion. I was speaking of the administrative powers of the President of the Board of Trade and of nothing else. Exactly the same considerations arise, and here with greater force, in regard to Part II of the Act. Under Part II, as the House is aware, the Board of Trade has no initiative. The initiative comes from some complaining body outside. If the Board of Trade thinks it not a frivolous case, it sends it to one of these Committees, and the right hon. Gentleman has discretion whether or not he will adopt the findings of the Committee. How do we stand in relation to the cases that have arisen under Part II? I shall be corrected if I am not up to date with my information. I am informed that three cases of complaint by people who allege that their goods have been improperly interfered with by competition of the character of dumping, have been dismissed by the Committees with the assent of the Board of Trade, one being the case of the toy industry, about which a great fuss was made in the newspapers and elsewhere. What is more important for the purposes of this discussion and perhaps more interesting, is that four reports of Committees have been sent in, but no decision has yet been given on any of them by the Board of Trade. I need not impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the importance of giving an early decision in these cases. One of them, a case which excites very great interest in Lancashire, that of fabric gloves, has been before the Board of Trade for over two months. It is a very good illustration of the difficulty of working an Act of this kind. I went to Bolton a short time ago and was presented there with a pair of fabric gloves, which I have since preserved and even occasionally worn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where are they now?

Mr. ASQUITH: I have the gloves off to-day. The ease is a very peculiar case. These gloves come from Germany and the English glove manufacturer does not like them; they are a very inconvenient competitive factor in the home market. On the other hand, these gloves are made entirely, or practically entirely, of cotton of a particular kind, Egyptian cotton, spun into fine yarn in the town of Bolton, which has a specialty in that particular branch of textile manufacture, and the cotton, having been imported from Egypt into Great Britain, has been spun at Bolton, is exported to Germany in the shape of yarn, and comes back woven in the shape of the finished fabric glove. There are obviously two sides to that question. I find that at Bolton, which is not pervaded by glove manufacturers but is largely or almost wholly given to the spinning of fine cotton yarn, the exclusion of these gloves was regarded as a serious blow to their most flourishing industry. I do not know what Report the Committee have made upon that subject or what, if any, decision the Government have come to. I rather think that, in answer to a question the other day, the President of the Board of Trade promised to announce a decision before Easter.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I may say something later.

Mr. ASQUITH: With regard to that case and the three others on which reports have been sent in and no action taken, there is very great uncertainty in the trades concerned, which is a serious hardship to producers, distributors and the public. There are other points in regard to the administration of the Act on which I should like to hear some reassuring statement from the President of the Board of Trade. The first is as to the refunding of duties that have been paid on articles which have subsequently been held by the tribunal not to come within the purview of the Act. There is for instance the case of lactose. It would seem only fair and equitable that people who have paid the duty under duress and have subsequently established the fact that the goods were not liable to the duty, should have a refund. The second point, which is also of importance, is as to the costs of these inquiries. They are very heavy. I am afraid that from the taxpayer's point of view any change in the
present rule—which is not to give costs to either side—would be more injurious than otherwise, because if costs were given against the Board of Trade in a particular case where the commodity is improperly included or improperly excluded, the costs would come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. On the other hand it is very serious that in such cases as that of calcium carbide the persons concerned, who have established the correctness and the equity of their case, should spend, as they had to spend, probably some thousands of pounds in instructing solicitors, expert witnesses, counsel, and in generally preparing their case, and not be able to recover any of that although they are successful in their contention. We are precluded, Sir, by the ruling you have just given, from drawing the natural inference which follows from what I have said. You, Mr. Speaker, will call me to order if I transgress the thin boundary line which separates administration from legislation. When one points out, as I have been endeavouring to do, that the Act is so framed that, even under the most able and well-intentioned administration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, it is found in many respects impracticable, inconvenient and productive of hardship; when one has pointed all that out, one must, according to the rules of our procedure, leave it to the Members of the House, in the serene seclusion of their own consciences, to draw the natural conclusion. I am perfectly content to leave it there.

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like, before replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), to say how I regret the absence of one of my keenest opponents to-day, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) and to say how profoundly the whole House regrets the reason for his absence. A sorrow such as his can only be assuaged by time, and the sense of it will abide while life lasts.
A great deal has been said in disparagement of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I would like, in my opening remarks, to say something in praise of it. I regard the Safeguarding of Industries Act as the one link that binds the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley to this House and to the interests in it. To that Act we owe many a delightful and instructive speech, and none more enlight-
ening and more instructive than the one to which we have just listened. I hope for my part that, so long as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley is a Member of this House, so long this Act may remain on the Statute Book. I do not propose to deal with all the points he raised, but I think this is a convenient opportunity for saying something about what the Act has achieved. I will say, in passing, that I have been waiting for an opportunity of this kind and it has been no fault of mine that on one or two occasions when hon. Friends of mine have tried to raise a discussion, that the general interest of the House did not seem as keen as theirs and that there was difficulty in protracting the Debate. Hon. Members who cast their minds back to the Debates of last year may remember that I always took the line that Part I of this Act would be a useful piece of legislation. Under Part I, I hope to see substantial progress made in a number of very valuable industries—so substantial that, by the time the Act lapses, those industries may be able to face any competition that they might at that time have to meet.
There can be no worse time than the present for any industries to make progress. We know that, when this Act first began to have effect, the country was passing through a period of very profound depression of trade. We know that, in a great many industries concerned under Part I, large stocks were held partly by reason of accumulation that had occurred in the good times, and an accumulation which remained when the times became bad; partly owing to stocks that had been accumulated during the War and were not subsequently liquidated; and partly owing undoubtedly to the very free purchasing produced, partly by the hopes of good trade continuing and partly with a view to removing as far as possible the advantage that might accrue to English manufacturers under the Act. These were the circumstances in which the industries concerned had to function. When you have regard to all these circumstances, I do not think we have any cause to be dissatisfied with the progress made.
The reports reaching me from the fine chemical industries are of a distinctly cheering nature. I hear of firms of chemical manufacturers who, when the Act first became effective, were discharging men and working short time, and the
same firms now are fully employed and working full time. I hear of progress made in scientific work, in which a beginning has been made in what I have been always most anxious about, which was to see the creation in this country of a body of skilled investigators and skilled workers in these trades, a new department of work in which we have hitherto been inferior to Germany The manufacture of the latch needle is progressing, and the manufacture of optical and scientific instruments, and it will doubtless be a source of satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Dr. Murray) to know that one firm has a scheme for the production on a large scale of microscopes. I hope that, although the progress may be made under this Act, that it will be regarded as satisfactory. I would not like to regard my hon. Friend as one of those critics who objects to a man making an honest score because his methods are not orthodox. Scientific glassware is also being made on a larger scale in this country, and the quality, as I am advised, of the various articles is improving. The progress generally is such and the goodwill in these industries is such, that I feel that my most sanguine hopes in regard to these industries will be justified by the time the Act comes to an end.
With regard to the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley on Part I, I should like to say a word or two. He spoke about the hearing of complaints before the Referee, and I would like to say on that subject that I am grateful to him for the testimony he paid to the skill and industry of those who work with me in my Department. I do think it is a very remarkable thing that, in producing a Schedule of this kind, with the complications incidental to such a Schedule, there should really have been so little dissatisfaction with it, and so few appeals. I think my right hon. Friend had the correct figures in regard to the commodities included in the list. There have been, so far, seven cases brought before the Referee, and of these, three were decided, if I may say so, in favour of the Board of Trade, and three against, and one has not yet been decided. In regard to complaints made as to the exclusion of articles, there were three complaints, and in each case the Referee held that they were properly excluded, thus justifying the original action
of the Board of Trade. It is quite true that a very large number of applications were sent in 48 hours before the time for the closing of those applications, but they were sent entirely by two trade associations who obviously wished to preserve their right, if they thought fit to make appeals; but from the information I have, a very small percentage of these will actually be brought to the Referee; and I should not be surprised if the total number of cases brought before him, in addition to those already taken, will be very few more than those already dealt with.
I agree with a great deal my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley said about the cost of applications; and the Board of Trade have done nothing to encourage the spending of money on these applications. After all, the spending of money must rest with the people who make applications. If considerable sums are at stake, if people are wealthy, and if they wish to prolong the inquiry and brief the most expensive counsel they can get, as was done in two cases, the costs will be heavy. If, on the other hand, they are content to proceed more modestly, the costs will be a great deal less heavy. In neither of these two cases did the Board of Trade call any witnesses; and no case, other than those two, occupied more than two hearings, and some of them were done in about a couple of hours. The Board of Trade—and here I doubt whether my right hon. Friend will agree with me—only brief junior counsel in these matters, and we find it does not involve us in as heavy costs. I think that, having regard to what I have said, there is no inherent inconvenience to people who wish to make claims—and who probably expect to benefit if they succeed in making their case—I cannot see there is any severe penalty upon them if they should have to pay for it. With regard to the refunding of drawbacks, as I am advised, that is really decided in the fifth Sub-section of the first Section of the Act—
and the list shall be amended so far as is necessary in order to give effect to the decision, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done there-under.
I am advised we have no power to enter into the question of refunds.

Major M. WOOD: Is it not on all fours with the Land Values Duties?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that wanted legislation, if I remember rightly.

Major WOOD: There was no legislation.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not clear on that point. I do agree with everything my right hon. Friend said about experts. That, I am afraid, is a disability inherent in this procedure. If you are going to have expert evidence, you do run the risk which is always present when you call experts. It is not only in regard to such inquiries as we have been holding that you get this trouble arising about the definition of terms. The definition of terms, or of a word, is provocative of more trouble in this country than almost anything else. I know, from my own experience when I was more interested in business than I am now, that most of the great labour disputes arose out of differences of opinion on the interpretation of words or of a few words. All experts differ, and the trouble and costs of these witnesses is a very grave matter. With regard to Part II of the Act there we get to a rather different ground: and my right hon. Friend was quite correct in the figures which he gave. There have been three eases referred to Committees which have been reported upon unfavourably, and there have been four others in which the decision of the Government has not yet been given. I very much regret I am not in a position to give the decision of the Board of Trade to-day on these four cases. But I would point out that, while I recognise that delay is unfortunate for the businesses concerned, yet if an Order were made to-day, it could not be put into force until it was ratified by the House, and therefore in no case could there be ratification until we re-assembled after Easter. Had it been possible to announce a decision any time within the last week or two, I doubt very much whether the Leader of the House would have been able to find the time necessary to discuss these decisions and have the Resolutions either passed or rejected. The more closely the time of getting the decision and the passing or otherwise of the Resolution of the House synchronises, the better, and I hope very soon after we meet it may be possible to give a decision to the House and to take the Debate which must necessarily follow it. I conceive it to be part of my duty as President of the
Board of Trade to examine very carefully the reports that are submitted to me by the Committees, with a view to following out every line of investigation which seems material, but which could not be brought under the Act before the Committee itself. It is quite obvious that, in some of these cases, there are other considerations which require very careful weighing. When the scales are balanced very evenly, the need for adjustment and consideration becomes the greater, and a comparison of the scales should always take place in an atmosphere as far removed from prejudice as possible. I do not know whether there is any other point that my right hon. Friend put that I have not touched upon. Although there is a great deal more that might be said on this matter, I am very reluctant to-day to take up too much time in discussing it. I remember—if I may just conclude with a point to illustrate what I am trying to explain to the House—I remember many years ago a lady—in what the Press interested in these matters calls "Society" (with a capital S)—paid a visit to Sir Edward Burne Jones's studio to look at his pictures. It is always very difficult for ladies, in society or out of it, to find appropriate remarks on seeing masterpieces of art. Stimulated by her unwonted proximity to genius, she evolved this dictum—she said: "Painting must dull the intellect." I think that perhaps too much study of Parliamentary Bills is apt to take the fine edge off the intellect, and I have great hopes that, when we meet refreshed by the Easter vacation, we shall be able to return to these matters with fresh vigour and fresh desire to form a right judgment on all things.

Mr. KILEY: I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on that quality of courage which we all know him to possess, but never has he exhibited it in a cause so weak as that which he has defended this afternoon. Before making any further comment, I w7ish to remove the impression which seems to prevail in certain quarters, that those who object to this Act are opposed to the development of British trade. That is an absolutely wrong conception, and I shall endeavour to demonstrate the fact by showing presently that the greater part of the commodities affected by this Act are the raw materials necessary for the develop-
ment of British industries. That important fact is being completely overlooked, and, despite his courage, the right hon. Gentleman refrained from giving any definite information on a matter which is of profound interest to many trades, and especially to the chemical trade, namely, the actual effects of the Act. He was about to show, and I listened with great expectancy for what was to follow, that great success has been obtained as a result of this Measure being passed into law. Then he came to a full stop and left the subject. Could he have told us, especially as regards the chemical industry, what that success had been—could he have told us how many new chemicals had been placed on the market as a result of this protection and as a result of this interference with the chemical industry, it would have been interesting, but when we consider that of the fine chemicals imported into this country no less than from 70 to 75 per cent, are for the purpose of re-manufacture or re-export, for which practically no provision is made in the Act, we can realise what have been the effects of the disturbance of that industry.
One result it has achieved up to now is that a considerable part of that trade is being diverted abroad and London traders have had to open branch establishments in Hamburg and elsewhere. If these commodities instead of coming to this country and providing trade and work in a good many circles are sent elsewhere it will affect not only our shipping and transport industry, but our banks and our warehouses and many other interests all of whom get something out of this trade. Yet this business has been diverted through the inability of those in authority in this country to enable the drawback or duty paid to be recovered. The President of the Board of Trade during the discussions on this Act said that arrangements would be made in this respect, but no arrangements of a satisfactory kind have been proposed up to now and this has resulted already in the loss of a certain amount of trade which we can ill-afford to lose at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman carefully refrained from giving any information as to the developments which have taken place in the chemical world as a result of this Act. If one were to examine the different industries of this country which did well, and which made
money out of and during the War I venture to say the chemical industry would be found to have been one of the most prosperous. As a result they got new plant and established new works and, of course, they would have developed in any case. I am only sorry that the development has not been greater. If the President of the Board of Trade, however, suggests that the development is due entirely to the Safeguarding of Industries Act he had better seek for information from some channel other than that which has been providing him with information up to the present.
In my own constituency we have a very large soap industry which is dependant upon certain perfumes. Although that is a very small part, still it is a very essential part of the work. Everyone can make soap, but it depends upon the perfumery as to what value the soap will realise. They have been compelled to import and pay this duty, which cannot help anybody, and the effect has been to make this part of the process a great deal more expensive, and for their export trade they have been at a considerable disadvantage. Results such as this can be seen in industry after industry. All have been affected in some way or another, and against that we have only the information that certain chemicals have been produced which would, perhaps, not otherwise have been necessary. That is a point upon which I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman, and I think I am expressing the point of view of many engaged in the chemical industry.
I am glad to hear that it is proposed to set up additional works for the manufacture of microscopes. One would imagine that microscopes were a new manufacture in this country. They have always been made here, and very valuable and important works have existed for generations. Whether more microscopes will be made now or not is a matter of doubt. Personally, I doubt it very much. There are certain people who believe that a certain brand is better than any other brand, and they will continue to get that brand and pay extra money for it if necessary, whether their belief is justified or not. We all know that there is a belief that the Kodak camera is better than any other type; people will pay, and are paying, the higher prices charged for the Kodak. If the President of the Board of Trade will
look up the case of Kodak cameras, on which a duty has been placed, he will find that the Kodak manufacturers are still selling their cameras, despite the fact that the purchaser has to pay more than he would otherwise. I am glad to know that glass industry in our own country is prosperous, and the more they prosper the better it is for us all. We have heard a great deal about glass from, amongst others, the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel). He himself endeavoured to get from the Board of Trade a definition of glassware which was dutiable and which was not.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: No, a definition of what is optical glass.

Mr. KILEY: I understand the hon. Member endeavoured to get from the Board of Trade or from the Customs a definition of what kind of glass was liable to duty, and he has failed. He is a staunch supporter of this Act, anxious to clear up difficulties that were arising, and when a supporter of the Act failed to get the information, it is not surprising that those who consider the Act ill-advised should also fail.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: They always do better.

Mr. KILEY: Then one has a very interesting experience when one desires to import, for instance, a pair of spectacles. There is always a debate as to the exact stage in magnification at which the glass becomes liable to duty. While I am on this point as to glass-ware I may call attention to a question addressed to His Majesty's Customs a day or two ago. This was in reference to the importation of a quantity of a well-known brand of pills. Apparently this brand of pill was able to pass successfully, but when it came to the glass container, that is, the little tube of glass about the size of a lead pencil containing the pills, then His Majesty's Officer of Customs decided that this must come under "lamp-blown ware." These tubes cost about 1s. per gross and the entire consignment of these pills had to be detained pending the decision of the amount of duty which should be forthcoming on these particular articles. This is one of the examples of the difficulties of importing glassware, an industry which has always been a very large and substantial one in this country. How
much improvement there has been as a result of this Act I think it would be very difficult to ascertain, and I am surprised that the President, knowing that he would be called upon to defend his Measure to-day, did not obtain something tangible from the glass authorities as to what progress they have made as a result of this protection which they have enjoyed for almost a year. The Act has been in operation for only a part of that time, I know, but the manufacturers knew that protection would be afforded them, and one would have thought that if they had derived sufficient benefit from the Measure, they would have been in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman some tangible results.
The President also referred to an application which has gone before the Referee, and he made some comment on the cost. It will interest him to know that there have been certain cases taken before the Referee, and what has happened? In the cases in which organised opposition has been presented, where experts have been called and learned counsel engaged, the application for removal has been successful, but in three cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, they were made by private individuals who could not go to the trouble or the expense of getting experts and legal advice, and they failed. Therefore, instead of these results doing anything to reduce the expenses, I am afraid they have done a great deal to increase the expenditure, and when it is realised that these applications on the average have cost over£1,000 in each case, and, as the President has told us, there are still 500 cases to be considered——

Mr. BALDWIN: Not at all. I did not say there were 500 cases still to be settled, but that something like that number of cases had been sent in before the last date for sending in. I understood the association had sent them in in order to preserve their rights, but I do not expect more than perhaps a dozen to materialise, and it would be altogether an exaggeration to say that anything like 500 are to go forward.

Mr. KILEY: The right hon. Gentleman has better sources of information at his disposal than I have, but I may suggest to him that he is very wide of the
mark. At any rate, 500 or more applications are in his office waiting for consideration, and what happens? An individual makes an objection to a certain commodity being on the Board of Trade list, and it is then for the President to consider whether that is justified. If it is justified, he calls upon the applicants to provide what is known as pleadings. In many of these cases the individual will not go to the expense of providing pleadings. He wishes to know whether the Board of Trade agree that there is any justification, and if there is justification, and the individuals are advised, then the pleadings and what other formalities are required will be forthcoming. Whether they are forthcoming to the extent of 500, the right hon. Gentleman is in a better position than I am to know, but that there will be scores and scores of these cases there can be no doubt at all. It is all very well for the President to say, "Why do these people spend the money?" He knows very well why they spend the money. I have demonstrated that already, by the cases in which a private individual has gone to the Referee without experts and without skilled legal advice. He has been defeated in every instance, because the Board of Trade defend their lists and have at their command all the Government experts; they call in costly advice, have their own solicitor, their own legal branch and skilled assistants, and they can put up an entire battery against the private individual who goes before them, which they do not hesitate to do in their own justification. Therefore, when the President asks why they spend money, I say that they realise what they are up against, and the success of their efforts up to now has entirely justified their action.
Let us realise what has happened up to the present moment. The amount realised by the duty under this Act for the first six months has been£140,000, but a considerable part of that has been improperly collected, so the Referee and the President of the Board of Trade declares. The Referee decided a few weeks back that a number of chemicals should come out of the list, and in conjunction some 40 odd other commodities had to be removed also. I do not know what part of the£140,000 this great block of raw material for other industries represents, but it represents a colossal amount.
I know in one of them was sugar of milk and represented duty value of£3,000, and the cream of tartar a much larger sum, and I can see a very substantial reduction of that amount if a drawback is obtainable by the importers. One can realise the position of the traders who are compelled to import these commodities as raw material for industry. A manufacturer cannot buy every hour of the day what he requires, but has to make contracts, and when he has got his material into his store and the duty is suddenly removed, he is left saddled with the goods without any opportunity of obtaining a rebate on the duty paid, yet this Measure is supposed to safeguard and help British manufacturers. The,£]40,000 will be very substantially reduced by the duty which the Customs have collected up to now, but which will not be obtainable in the future, and I have no doubt that as these applications against the list are considered by the Referee, this amount will become smaller and smaller.
It is quite true that there has been only a limited number of applications dealt with up to the present—in all, I think, something like 10—and they have cost well over£1,000 each, and if there is any large proportion of these 500 cases still to be considered, then the President will realise the pros and cons of the amount of duty that has been collected and the cost to the consumer, remembering all the time that nearly every one of these tariffs increases the cost of the finished manufactured goods. In the list which the Board of Trade has issued there were some 6,000 commodities, and one would have thought that sufficient, but it is found that it includes various headings, such as "Lamp-blown ware," and under that one item alone come hundreds, and I would not be surprised if there were several thousands more under that one category. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Customs to-day are levying duty, or attempting or are entitled to levy duty, on well over 10,000 articles. It does not require much calculation to work out that a revenue for half a year of£140,000 distributed over 10,000 commodities brings down the total revenue to something like£10 per commodity in the half-year. And this is the great Measure that is going to revolutionise trade, and make good all deficiencies!

Mr. SEDDON: It was not done for revenue, but to carry out the pledges of certain Members of Parliament.

Mr. KILEY: If it was not done for revenue, it was done because the amount of imports was so great that it was inflicting injury upon British trade, and when you come to analyse it, it comes to£10 per commodity. If my hon. Friend were to try to import some commodity on which the duty payable was 1s., he would realise what he had to go through to get that package. They would send him three large official forms to fill in. Then he has got to take those forms to an excise officer, it may be 20 or 30 miles away from his location, if in the country. He has then to hand over his original invoice with the amount of duty, and in two or three weeks' time get his package delivered. And this is supposed to facilitate and help industry. Time and time again questions have appeared on the Notice Paper as to why it must take so many days, weeks or months to obtain delivery, and every time we get a different reason given. It is either that the officers are inexperienced, or the premises are too small, and that other premises are being taken. The next explanation given was, that in the process of removing to these larger premises, there had been an amount of delay and confusion, and again the "Xmas pressure." Having got over the inexperience and the difficulty of the premises being too small, the reply given last week was that there had been a strike on the German railways, and that that had brought in more parcels than they could cope with.
Almost every week we have had an apology based upon a different reason, and so the proceedings go on over this, trumpery Act, necessitating the holding up of millions of pounds' worth of goods. We had an illuminating case the other day of some bronze powder, which, was the subject of a Committee appointed to consider whether it should have a duty imposed upon it or not. A consignment arrived, and the Customs official was not sure whether a duty had been imposed, and that necessitated the goods being detained pending inquiry. Having made inquiries and found the goods were not liable, he then decided to send a sample to London to the Government chemist to
find out whether there was any "fine" chemical connected with the commodity upon which a duty was payable. In the ordinary course of procedure, a packet arriving from the Continent on which there is no duty payable is cleared almost automatically, but any commodity which is subject to duty, or is thought to be subject to duty, is now detained. In the ordinary course the thing would go through, but if it is not cleared within three days it often takes 13 days to get a packet through; it is taken into the docks and there are the charges and rent accumulating every day.
I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to go into the City houses and ascertain what all this means to the trading community. There is, perhaps, one redeeming point. In going through the streets of the City of London I observed a number of new motor vehicles, which are the property of the carrying agents, so that if this Act has done very little good to the ordinary manufacturing interests, it has been a great boon to the owners of docks, warehouses, and clearing agents, as they have, almost without exception, been able to obtain new vehicles, so that, at least, this Act has done some good to somebody, even although the unfortunate consumers have to pay for these expenses, and a good many other charges in addition.
I will defer to another occasion any remarks I have to make about some of the Committees. I might, however, just say a word about glass. There has been a very important Committee dealing with imported glassware. Suppose the Committee recommend, and the President of the Board of Trade confirms, the imposition of a duty on tumblers from Bohemia, it will immediately mean the transference of that trade to Belgium, where no duty is applicable. At the proceedings before that Glass Committee, which I attended on one or two occasions, an extraordinary procedure arose. The applicants, who were applying for an order, stated their case. The opponents, who were not prepared for certain statements which were made, challenged those statements and, as they were not allowed to examine or cross-examine witnesses, they applied for an adjournment in order to bring rebutting evidence, which was duly obtained. Then the original applicants stated that they wanted an
adjournment to bring rebutting evidence against the other rebutting evidence, and that was duly granted. It is not, therefore, surprising that Sir Arthur Colefax, a very important counsel at the Bar, with a good deal of experience, made a violent protest. He said it was most unfortunate, and he knew of no method less calculated to arrive at the truth than the proceedings as laid down by the President of the Board of Trade.
Certain appeals have been made to the President to reconsider the system. I can tell him from my own experience that it certainly is an extraordinary method by which a witness can make a statement and the other person concerned cannot put a cross-examining question. The only way, therefore, to get rebutting evidence, and questions put, is to chase all over the country, and find somebody of authority on the opposite side, bring him to London, before the Committee. Proceedings of that kind are certainly very unsatisfactory. They prolong the proceedings and add to the cost. I submit that this Measure has done very little indeed to encourage trade, but it has inflicted an amount of annoyance, cost, and trouble beyond all calculations upon various branches of industry, and, therefore, I suggest to the President that he might well, having had some months' experience, consider the point of considerably amending the Bill or totally repealing it.

Mr. ATKEY: I desire to intervene in this Debate for two reasons, the first being the observations that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in regard to the attitude of Chambers of Commerce towards this Bill. I suppose in any community, either of business men or any other, there will "be a minority who are always prepared to disagree with the greater wisdom of their colleagues. That may apply to Chambers of Commerce. What, however, I am concerned to point out is that the body which is entitled to speak most fully in regard to the attitude of Chambers of Commerce as a whole is the Association of British Chambers of Commerce——

Mr. KILEY: No, no no! [HON. MEM-BEES: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. ATKEY: —nd they do it on the rinciple for which my hon. Friend stands in other directions. I can claim that the
Association of British Chambers of Commerce is entitled to speak on behalf of Chambers of Commerce.

Mr. KILEY: These Gentlemen were speaking for themselves. They did not consult their constituents, and get their authority for the action they took.

Mr. ATKEY: My hon. Friend is surely not acquainted with the procedure of the Chambers of Commerce. We are interested rather in those who manufacture than those who sell.

Mr. KILEY: Does the hon. Gentleman know that I am chairman of two manufacturing companies?

Mr. ATKEY: I did not know, and I am delighted to hear it. I understood the principal interest of my hon. Friend was in other directions. If he is chairman of two manufacturing businesses, all I can suggest is that it is a great pity he does not help these associations which are mainly concerned in manufacture. It would undoubtedly be an interesting thing—it might possibly be instructive, and certainly entertaining—if my hon. Friend would join a Chamber of Commerce, for no doubt his evidence would be an important factor, and would secure him a seat upon the executive of the body.

Mr. KILEY: I have been chairman for ten years!

Mr. ATKEY: Then the other manufacturers do not recognise the merits of my hon. Friend. Otherwise we should have had the benefit of his advice in the larger counsels of the nation as far as commerce is concerned. With all respect, I venture to suggest that my hon. Friend would be less able to impress the Council of the Associations of Chambers of Commerce in regard to his righteousness on this subject than he does this House. There they would possibly be prepared to deal with him on common grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley suggested that certain Chambers of Commerce view with hostility this Safeguarding of Industries Act. What I rose to point out is this, that so far as the representative body, not of any particular Chamber of Commerce of a locality, but the national representative body of the Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, it was
one of the principal factors in impressing upon the Government the necessity to introduce this Act. On 22nd July the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce addressed a very long letter to the President of the Board of Trade, urging upon him the immediate necessity of introducing this Bill. The Council of the Sheffield Chamber in their letter drew attention to the "prolonged delay" in the introduction of the Bill. Again, at a quarterly meeting in November, 1920, a Resolution was considered at the Leicester Chamber pressing for the introduction of this Act. The purpose for which I rose, however, was not so much for this, but for the secondary purpose of telling what trade has got so far as this Bill is concerned. I do not know anything of the chemical industry, and I am not prepared to deal with the observations of my hon. Friend in regard to the difficulties incidental to that industry. Personally, in so much as this Bill is a protection of home industries, I am not at all concerned with the worries of those who try to import foreign-made articles into this country. Whilst that may be very irritating to those who prefer to see German goods sold in this country to British, these troubles and vexatious delays to which the hon. Member refers offer a certain amount of satisfaction to one who like myself would sooner see British goods sold in this country than German.

Mr. KILEY: So would everybody of sense!

Mr. ATKEY: I am only sorry that so many people seem to lack sense. It is very difficult to deal with some people by means of the truth. They perhaps suffer the same kind of irritation as they allege their foreign friends suffer when they try to dump their goods on the British market. They are always irritable on the subject. My hon. Friend suggested that in the case of the chemical industry there would have have been considerable development if this Act had not been passed; therefore the President may claim no credit, seeing the development is not due to this Act. I am speaking as representing a small industry, the latch needle industry, which, as a matter of fact, would not have been in existence to-day but for the passing of this Act. It would have dropped out of existence. I am very much surprised that Members of the House should criticise this Bill, and that
they seem to be so blinded apparently by certain fixed principles which have dominated them for so long that they utterly fail to realise any of the benefits that might have accrued by the passing of this Act. My hon. Friend raises the question again of what is lost to this country when certain industries are protected under this Act. Here I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that it would be well if by any means, with the machinery at his disposal, he could present the case of individual trades in the form of a balance-sheet, so that we could judge these cases on their merits. It should be clearly shown that what is lost by having to transfer certain faciliites to Hamburg to deal with export trade would be more than compensated for by building up an industry here and giving employment here, and then we should be able to meet this problem on a different basis. If we continue to discuss it on the present lines, there seems to be no possible end to it. With regard to Part II, I suppose it would be possible to obtain protection for the lace trade. That is not a trade where the raw material has to come from abroad.

Mr. KILEY: The cotton has to come from abroad.

Mr. ATKEY: Yes, but the yarn is made in England. This is an industry in relation to which the position is that it was developed in this country, and to-day, owing to abnormal conditions, it is at an absolute standstill, and 90 per cent, of the machines employed in the lace industry and the capital employed in it are also at a standstill. The result is that an equivalent number of men are receiving relief from one source and another because, owing to exchanges and other circumstances, the lace can be imported more cheaply from abroad. That is a suggestion which I wish to lay before the right hon. Gentleman. Here is the capital in this country and the workers are unemployed, and there is an equivalent amount of that product arriving in this country from abroad which, if produced here, would employ every lace-maker in Nottingham on full time. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable proposition, to consider whether that trade cannot be brought under Part II of the Act.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman also to consider the advisability of preparing a balance-sheet to show what the country is losing by loss of interest on capital and unemployment and wages in such instances as this. I would also like him to show, on the other hand, what is lost by the shopkeepers who sell the lace. If this were done, I am sure we should get a state of affairs which would enable this trade to be dealt with as a commercial matter, quite apart from the political bias which has been introduced. My object in rising was to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on his determination to carry on the good work in connection with this Bill. I was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had assumed that there was a much greater body of opposition to these proposals than really exists. The opponents of this Measure have talked long and loud, but those of us who are satisfied that the Bill was right trust the right hon. Gentleman will continue to carry on this good work. At any rate, I tender on behalf of one industry their thanks and appreciation, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will continue firm in support of the Measure which he has introduced.

Mr. REMER: I think the House was deeply impressed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, particularly the latter portion, which referred to the great amount of employment which had resulted from the imposition of these taxes in connection with Part I of the Act dealing with fine chemicals and other goods. I think that is only carrying out the experience which we have always had in relation to the imposition of import duties on such articles as motor-cars and musical instruments. Our experience has been that this policy has always resulted in more employment in this country, and it has been beneficial to the trade and commerce of the country as a whole. It is more than amazing to me that the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet, having that experience before their eyes, they have not made more efforts to bring Part II of the Act into operation, and bring the same beneficial results to the other trades which have resulted from the adoption of Part I of the Act.
I wish to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade particularly to the silk trade, which has a
great representation in the constituency which I represent in Parliament. In this trade last year there were imported£18,000,000 sterling of manufactured silk, and if only£2,000,000 sterling of that amount had been manufactured in this country, every machine would have been fully occupied. There is most appalling unemployment, short-time and distress amongst the silk-workers at the present day. I do not think it would affect very much the people of this country if they had to pay a little more for silk goods, which obviously are luxuries, and something which the people have no necessity to buy. Consequently a little higher cost would not inflict upon them any hardship. I am sure when we realise this it will be granted that there are a great many arguments why these trades should be dealt with under Part II of the Act in a much more prompt manner than they have been.
Those connected with the trade I have mentioned put their case forward, but it was turned down under Part II because they were not able to bring a prima facie case forward. Owing to representations which have been made, I understand that that decision is being reconsidered, but on account of the delay which has taken place unemployment continues, and this is causing great discontent amongst even, the members of the Labour party in Macclesfield, who think that the Government are at fault in this matter. When that case came before the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor there was a. deputation from the Joint Industrial Council of the silk trade, which included the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Bromfield), who is a trade union official, members of the Liberal party and the Conservative party as well, and they saw the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade and they pleaded for a protective measure of this kind for their trade. I contend that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take vigorous steps to try and press forward Part II of the Act to enable the silk trade, and other trades who can put up as good a case, to be dealt with, instead of being placed in the very difficult position in which they stand at the present time.

Mr. SEDDON: The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) reminds me of the complaint which was once made
against Mr. Gladstone—that he "dealt in candle ends." I discovered through the whole of his speech little niggling things which had no connection with the great principle involved. Having listened carefully to this Debate, I think every speaker seems to have forgotten that this Act of Parliament, for good or for ill, was the result of promises made to manufacturers in this country. It seems to have been forgotten that during a certain stage of the War certain necessities were so vital because they had been supplied by our enemies that many of the key industries have been lost, and there was a danger of losing the War because fierce foreign competition had destroyed the manufacture of those particular articles which had been discovered to be key articles during the prosecution of the War.
I want to call attention to one particular trade. The hon. Member for Whitechapel complained very bitterly that a soap factory in his constituency could not make soap because of a particular kind of perfume that had come under this Act. I am going to take the argument in the opposite direction. During the War the great pottery industry of this country was handicapped, and, in fact, was coming to a standstill for decorated china ware. The manufacture of ceramic transfers had been almost entirely in the hands of Germany and Austria. The Government wishing to carry on this industry to supply the home trade made certain overtures. I do not say that they were made by responsible statesmen—but they were made by officials in the Board of Trade Department. A deputation was brought from the pottery districts, and they were asked whether it would be possible for them to supply the ceramic transfers which were not coming into the country because we were at War with Germany and Austria, who had hitherto supplied them. The manufacturers said, "What is the good of us putting up this capital if, when the War is over, we are subjected to the same competition as that from which we have had to suffer. It will simply be wasting money." I have it on authority that a Mr. Simpson—I do not know whether the same person is still engaged at the Board of Trade—informed that deputation that they would not be subject to the same conditions of competition, and upon that statement thousands of pounds of capital have been put
into this industry, which at the moment stands in jeopardy. I think the Government and Government officials should carry out their pledge and that there ought to be a code of honour towards manufacturers as there is towards the men who fought the battles of this country.
Last night we had a discussion in which charges were made against the Ministry of Pensions that certain things had not been done for men who had served the country in its hour of trial. Surely, if pledges were made to manufacturers that they would at least be given help whereby they might get a return of their capital, it is essential for the country's good name that those pledges should not be broken because of mere party shibboleths and that men should lose their capital and be thrown back into the position in which they were before the promises were made. This Act is a fulfilment of those promises. If there be small irritation in the administration of it, that is a matter for inquiry. I am glad to know that, irrespective of party shibboleths, the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding all the difficulties that surround the question, is faithfully carrying out the provisions of this Act, which is the fulfilment of promises made by Government Departments to those who came to the assistance of the country when the country needed their help.

NEAR EAST.

2.0 P.M.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rather regret that the exigencies of Parliamentary time bring to an end an interesting discussion and that some of my hon. Friends are thereby excluded, but it is not my fault. The House will not be surprised that the subject to which I wish to call attention is the Near East. I have been compelled to address the House on many occasions on this subject, but really I have done so because somebody must do it, and, with the exception of the very cordial support that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Aneurin Williams) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil), I have been left unsupported. At the same time, I am perfectly sure that the opinions that I
have expressed with regard to the protection of the Christians in the Near East are shared by the overwhelming majority of the people of the country, and, I believe, by the overwhelming majority of this House. When last I addressed the House, I was dealing with this subject at the very moment when the Conference that was to decide upon it was sitting at Paris. It was rather late to intervene. It is still later now, because to a certain extent the Foreign Ministers of the different countries have come to some form of proposed agreement. Therefore, I shall to-day confine myself to a criticism, not altogether unfriendly, of the proposed terms as reported in the papers.
The first point that I must raise is the reported demand of the Kemalist authorities that the evacuation of the Greek troops from Smyrna should begin immediately and continue regularly until all the Greek troops have left Asia Minor. I trust that I am not too sanguine when I express the hope that these proposals of the Turkish Government will be indignantly refused by the Allied Powers. I suppose my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is kept informed of the movements of opinion in Greece and in Smyrna, and I think he will confirm the statement that these proposals of the Kemalists for the beginning of the immediate evacuation of Asia Minor by the Greek troops has been received with resentment and stupefaction, and that all Greeks have risen in revolt against it. The indication of this unanimity of Greek resistance to these demands is very strong. We all know how the Greeks have been strongly divided by party feeling during the last few years, but it is only those who are acquainted with the Greek character that realise how bitter these party conflicts can be among Greeks, with the result that very often when, from the point of view of a detached foreigner like myself, the unification of their forces, and the oblivion for the moment of their party differences, are required in the national interest, they still continue. They have, up to the announcement of these terms. Now my information is that the differences between the Venizelists and the Royalists are forgotten, and there has been a national committee representative of Greeks all over the world formed for the purpose of common national effort. We
have this remarkable symptom, that a large number of Venizelist officers, who unwillingly found themselves in Constantinople, have now left there and gone to Asia Minor, in order that they may add their arms and swords to the army of their country. In Smyrna we have the very remarkable symptom that a committee has been formed for the purpose of resisting to the utmost the evacuation of the city, and that this committee has given a very strong demonstration of the sincerity and purity of its feelings by passing a resolution that one-fifth of their property shall be at the disposal of the Greek-Smyrna Government for the purpose of supplying the necessary funds for the continuance of this movement.
I am confining myself for the moment to Asia Minor, and I ask, is not this attitude of the Greeks natural? I may give three or four reasons for suggesting that it is. In the first place, they were sent by the Allies to Asia Minor. I do not know that they specially wanted to go, but they were requested to go by their powerful Allies, and such a request, under the circumstances, amounted to a command. They have carried on a very long and difficult campaign. In the greater part of that campaign they have been quite successful. They did not get to Angora, and I do not know that they had any great desire to do so, but by a series of real victories they got to the very gates of the place. Here is the tragic point of the situation for them. They have left altogether, from first to last, the bodies of 40,000 of their gallant men on the battlefields of Asia Minor, and they would have been more than human if, having been sent by the Allies to carry on this campaign, and having lost 40,000 of their gallant soldiers, and expended millions of money, they should not have resented the cool proposal to leave their co-religionists and compatriots at the mercy of the Turks. I do not believe that if all the Powers to-morrow demanded acceptance of the terms of Angora, the Greeks would accept them. They will not take all their men immediately out of Asia Minor. Even if this country, whom they have looked upon absolutely as a loyal and faithful friend, demanded the immediate evacuation of it, they would not, I believe, obey. I do not believe that if the civil Government at Athens called upon the soldiers to come away, they
would get them out of Asia Minor. It would be necessary to drive them out by force, and I would ask, is there any European statesman who would propose to send one man or to spend one shilling in order to force the Greeks out of Asia Minor?
Why should the Greeks object to the' immediate evacuation of Asia Minor and the surrender of Smyrna? The reason is quite plain. Assume that the Greek troops begin to retire, everyone knows that there are large scattered bodies of Greeks and Armenians in that territory, and the question is, what would be their fate if they were deserted by the Greek bayonets? Does anyone acquainted with the monotonous history of Turkish authorities in dealing with the Greeks not realise that they would be at once exposed to massacre by the triumphant Turks? Then I come to Smyrna itself. It is, and always has been, a Greek city. There are large bodies of Armenians there, and I have never spoken to an Armenian who was not convinced that the expulsion of the Greeks from Smyrna territory would mean not merely the possible massacre of Greeks, but also the possible massacre of Armenians there. I sometimes find it difficult to restrain my indignation when, remembering how this country has advocated the protection of the Christians in the Near East from the habitual butchery of the Turks—I find men in this House ready to defend perpetually the sanguinary rule of the Turks over Christian populations. I am glad to think that some of my hon. Friends opposite will join with me in making a strenuous demand that not only our Government but that the Governments of France and Italy shall provide, if the evacuation does take place at all, that it shall only take place when men of our own race are there to see that the Turks carry out their promises, or, bearing in mind that they have so often broken their promises in the past, to see that they shall abstain from their periodical butcheries of Christians. That is all I can say at present, for I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House.
I now come to the European part of these proposals of the Government I have heard that the new frontiers of Thrace were drawn, not by Ministers, but by soldiers, and I understand that the chief soldier taking part in the task
was Marshal Foch. With all due respect for great warriors, I do not think any frontier could have been imagined out of Bedlam which was more unsuitable to the conditions obtaining in this part of the world. What is the result I will not go into the details, but under the Treaty of Sevres there was one tremendous advantage in the frontier, and that was that there was no common frontier between Bulgaria and Turkey. That was right. I do not want Bulgaria, or any country, to be subjected to harsh or unfair terms. Heaven forbid that I should say any word that would prevent facilities being given for the future development of Bulgaria. But I do not want Bulgaria to get any encouragement to enter into a new Balkan war, and I say that, when you put the Bulgarian and the Turkish frontiers together, you are putting in the way of Bulgaria and Turkey, both of whom regard the Serbians as common enemies, a temptation which, in my opinion, threatens an early and a worse war in the Near East. These are not only the opinions of the Greeks. I abstained from asking my hon. Friend any question upon this, because my information was not sufficiently adequate to justify me in doing so, but I may say that I have strong reason to believe that this rearrangement of the Thracian frontier excites as much alarm and indignation among the peoples of Rumania and Serbia as it does among the people of Thrace. The Rumanians and the Serbians regard this new frontier as opening the very portals of the temple of war against both them and the Greeks. For these reasons I hope that, before this new Treaty reaches its final form, representations on the part of our own Government with regard to the dangers I have pointed out will be made, and will be adhered to, and that we may not, at the end of a war for the liberation of mankind, see all that work undone by exposing once more the Christians to misgovernment and to massacre.

Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has entirely forgotten the reputation of the Greeks for guile. It is not for nothing that they are the compatriots of the wily Ulysses, of whom it was written:
But the reputation of the Greek for guile, which in Homer's time had reached high Heaven, has not yet penetrated the 20th Century House of Commons. It is very easy—nothing is simpler—for one hon. Member to claim the finer feelings of humanity and to think that others are lacking in that attribute. But it may not be entirely more humanity—it may be greater credulity, or larger unacquaintance with the people of the country concerned—which may make it so easy for an hon. Member to adopt that line. There must be Members present besides myself who have, at times in their lives, been placed in the position of a judge. Nothing is easier, when you have heard the prosecution, than to deliver judgment and say the man shall be hanged; and, when you have heard the defence, it is equally easy to find that he is innocent. It is then that the trouble of finding out what are the facts begins. But the friends of the Greek, owing to the guile which reached high Heaven 3,000 years ago, have induced the people of this country to regard this, of all subjects, as the only subject to which there are not two sides.
I doubt very much if anyone present knows, or if it is known at all in this country, how extremely difficult it is to combat the position which was established when Mr. Gladstone conducted what was known as the Turko-Bulgarian atrocity agitation. Since that time the truth of that agitation has been regarded as an article of faith, and I think that the hon. Member the other day attached particular importance to some report of a Greek atrocity because it came from a patriarch to an Archbishop. I wonder whether in his life he has found that ecclesiastics are less keen in controversy than lay professors of that art. Is that his experience? All these things go absolutely by default, and it is a most disastrous fact for this country that that is so. It was an ecclesiastic, Canon McCall, who "devilled" for Mr. Gladstone on that occasion, and, when all the harm had been done, it was subsequently found that he had taken scarecrows in fields for impaled Bulgarians.

Mr. O'CONNOR indicated dissent.

Sir J. D. REES: Surely, now that my hon. Friend is in possession of the sympathies of the House and the whole world in regard to these butcheries, he can allow me for a few moments, without
interruption, to represent what I assert to be the truth. The results of the establishment of this position have been most disastrous for the British Empire. It was owing to that that we had the Turks against us in the War, and it is owing to the fact that the Turks were against us in the War that we have thrown the two branches of the great Mahommedan religion in Asia—the Shiahs and the Sunnis—into one another's arms, have caused the disaffected among the Hindoos to join the Mahommedans who were previously our friends, and have united against us the Mahommedans in every country and every clime. I presume that those who preach this are satisfied with their handiwork. I heard the hon. Member say that when this long overdue evacuation of the Turkish city of Smyrna takes place, our own troops must be there. For how long are our troops going to stay in Asia Minor? As long as this age-long quarrel continues to exist? What of the British taxpayer? Are we to keep an army of British troops in Asia Minor?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I never said that.

Sir J. D. REES: I took down my hon. Friend's words, but I do not want to misrepresent him, and should be very sorry to do so.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Baronet will forgive me for interrupting him, but he had better know what I really said, so that his case may not be on a false foundation. I did not propose to keep an army of troops in Asia Minor; I proposed that representatives of ours should be there, which is quite a different thing.

Sir J. D. REES: I understood the hon. Member to mean troops. I do not know what would happen to one representative between the lion and the lamb—which of these animals each side represents I do not say. I say that this has become a fixed idea in England, just like the wickedness of Czarism in Russia, which everyone now wishes we could see restored. I do protest with all my heart—and I wish that this matter had some Member of greater weight in this House to deal with it instead of myself—I do protest strongly against this whole attitude, which, I say, is founded entirely upon sentiment and not upon knowledge. The hon. Gentleman considers all the oppressions that are done upon the earth and asks us to behold the tears of such
as are oppressed and have no comforter, who, according to him, are the Greeks and Armenians. I say they are the Turks. It is they who lack money, ability, friends, and intrigue to place their case before the public of this country. I do not call in question the good faith of the hon. Member in taking that line; I merely deplore his credulity, and regret that he should not study both sides before falling in with the dominant anti-Turkish attitude.
The other day the Under-Secretary of State said that the Greek Government had accepted the armistice proposal. I gather that it is a very qualified acceptance, and that they will accept it, but that they will not go away, or will leave behind them a certain number of officers or of troops. I do not know if that is so, and I should like the Under-Secretary to enlarge upon that question a little, and tell us whether Marshal Foch will decide whether any troops, and if so what numbers, are to remain during the evacuation when that evacuation begins. I am asking for information, and not by way of teaching the House. There has not yet been an actual acceptance of the armistice by both sides. While matters were in this critical situation, and when the friends of each side are naturally on the alert, the case was brought before this House of an alleged massacre at Kerassunde, in the Pontus, as we must now again learn to call it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, dealing with its alleged massacre. I must say abstained carefully from allowing that any such massacre had taken place, and I trust that he will allow me to congratulate him upon that correct attitude.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Because I had no evidence that it had happened.

Sir J. D. REES: But my hon. Friend, unlike others, does not regret it. He sees no object in crediting a massacre irrespective of information. The fact is that the information so carefully supplied came a little too late. It was intended to come in time for the Paris Conference. I have seen something of Eastern ecclesiastics, and have sat at the same table with them and, owing, I suppose, to some idiosyncrasy on the part of the ecclesiastics or, probably, as
I should judge, to some confusion between the Greek and the Gregorian calendars, it arrived a day or two too late to produce its desired effect upon the Paris Conference, and therefore it was burst upon an astonished and credulous House of Commons. It is not unusual in a matter like this to quote outside opinions and as I am a sort of Athanasius contra mundum, on this occasion, though I am not indulging in any of the forms of condemnation which were habitual with Athanasius, I would like to read, if I am allowed, the opinion of the beet champion of the Mahommedans after the Aga Khan, who is away in India but whose powerful voice would, I believe, reinforce what I say were he here to speak for his coreligionists. Mr. Amir Ali, late Judge of the High Court of Calcutta and at present a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, writes to me:
These incessant attacks in the House of Commons on the Anatolian Government are not calculated to placate Moslem opinion in India or restore peace in that country. From the Imperial point of view I deplore the fanaticism and ignorance which are at the bottom of this extraordinary attitude.
For many years it has been said about the Turks that they were great diplomatists. It was said that they were terrible men to meet in diplomacy. Granted that they were sufficiently wicked, would such people be sufficiently foolish to commit this massacre just at the moment when the terms of the new treaty, which are very much in their favour, thank God, as compared with the old one, were under consideration, when the evacuation of Smyrna was certain to arouse bitter anti-Turkish feeling? At that moment would they be so foolish as to indulge in their sanguinary instincts, if they had them, at a moment so supremely convenient to their own bitter age-long enemies? I do not think that the House can believe it. In the history of this long quarrel there have been many massacres invented, exaggerated, post-dated and ante-dated.
I recall such a case which was proven up to the hilt. Something was necessary to justify a resumption of hostilities in September, and there was the ready report of a massacre. But it happened that there was an English prisoner in the place, and he upset the whole fiction which had been arranged. He was a Mr. Medlicott, a gentleman of good
character, and he upset this fiction by saying that he had no evidence of any massacre. I could produce many such cases. I brought before the House a case of a massacre of Turks which was very serious, as I thought, but I will not repeat it now. The Under-Secretary did not show any excessive sympathy with the Turks, but he did say that he had heard of this massacre, but that his information was to a different effect altogether. That particular massacre, if I may use the word, was reported by the London Moslem League, a League consisting of Mahommedans in this country. They ascribed it to a thoroughly reliable and authentic source, and described it in terms which I gave, to show that the men, women, and children were shut up in a mosque, to which the Greeks set fire, and out of 400 only a few escaped. I was very careful in my question to describe this as an alleged massacre, nor will I quote this particular paper which I have in my hand from the London Moslem Society, because under the great provocation which they have received it is couched in strong terms. But it is not only societies of this sort that give such evidence. Take the chairman of the Ottoman Railway, Lord St. Davids. He says that in the Smyrna district he knew that since the Greeks occupied that zone they burned 50 or 60 Turkish villages and that there has been loss of life, and that in another railway zone some 300 or 400 Turkish villages have been burned, and he asks:
If the Greeks do this when they occupy a country peacefully, what will they do when they evacuate it?
That is a business testimony. I know that at present the Greeks are moving heaven and earth to diminish the power which remained to the Turks after the Paris Conference, and in the effort to retain Smyrna. Of course Smyrna is everything; it means the whole hinterland of Asia Minor; it is the great port of Asia Minor. To offer the Turks independence without Smyrna would be perfectly absurd. Now we are to have a movement in London. There is to be a great meeting at the Albert Hall. I with my own eyes have seen emissaries of the Greek Government permeating social, economical and commercial society with the intention of keeping up that view of this question which it has become almost high treason to question in this country. To-day at Question Time the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not answer me when I asked why so exceptional a favour was granted to the Greeks as the release of securities in the possession of the British Government for the purpose of allowing the Greeks to raise a loan. Neither could he say that there was any condition as to the spending of the money, except the condition that it should be spent in this country. That is another favour to the Greeks.
What is to be done I No doubt when this evacuation takes place there will be killing on one side and massacre on the other—I hardly know what words to use-There will be killings on both sides. Who is to be present to report to us? I Shall we have anyone there but a missionary? I do not disparage missionaries—God forbid—but their profession makes them inclined to take the side of the Christians against the Turk. Whom shall we have there? There is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend), a persona grata with both Greeks and Turks. Will he be there, or someone like him? There is my hon. Friend the Member for the Yeovil Division (Mr. A. Herbert), a man of great ability and high courage, who is respected by every one who knows him. Will he be there? Will men not already infected with the anti-Turkish virus that prevails all over this country be there I Are any of these likely to be sent as Commissioners, or, if they desire to go, will they be furnished with the necessary passports? I hope, with all my heart, seeing that this is the greatest Mahommedan power in the world, that the French will not be allowed to deal with this alone, not because they would not deal well with it, not because we do not welcome their co-operation in every possible field and consider agreement with them as the Iode-star of our policy, but because, since their Mahommedan subjects are about 50,000,000 and ours are about 120,000,000, it is indeed desirable that we should be associated in some unequivocal manner in the friendly protection of the Turks at this time, and not of the Greeks, who are amply represented in this country.
I hope I have not spoken with any undue warmth on this subject. In the subjects of the British Empire Mahom-medans are larger in number than
Christians. Next to Hindus come the Mahommedans and after them the Christians, numerically. When I remember the disastrous and deplorable results that have ensued—it may not be true, I do not know—from the impression created—I myself shared it—that not only the Government, but the House of Commons reflected the English feeling that they are pro-Greek and therefore anti-Turk; when I reflected on the mischief that this has done and upon the fact that 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 of Mahommedans who were our friends to a man in India, were men on whom we could count to be our truest friends, had now joined with the seditious section of the Hindus; when I reflect that that has been the result of this deplorable impression, that it has spread also with disastrous results into Egypt, so that we have banded against us one of the greatest religions of the world—when I see that that is the result of the policy pursued I am full of alarm and apprehension, and on no occasion will I omit to lift my voice against this policy and to speak on behalf of the oppressed Turks and their cousins the Indian Mahommedans.

Captain COOTE: The hon. Member who has just spoken is doing no good service to the Empire or to the cause of the Moslems in India by making the sort of speech he has just delivered, for all of what he has said to-day will be assiduously reported to the Khilafat agitation in India, and will be used as an efficient instrument of propaganda. The proof of the importance of this question lies in the reflection that speeches such as those of the two hon. Members who have just spoken have been made in this House for at least a quarter of a century, and that the Near Eastern question still remains in the same position of acute danger as when they first raised it in this House. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and the hon. Baronet who has just spoken said one thing with which I heartily agree. That was the suggestion that Allied officers should be sent out at once to supervise whatever arrangements may result from the Armistice, which apparently is to be accepted by both sides in these regions. It is most unwise for people in this country to take sides on this question. We should realise the limitation of our powers in relation to this question. We
should not exalt it into either a religious or a colour question. Otherwise we shall only intensify those evils which we are seeking to cure. The reports of disturbances which have already reached this country only confirm the impression which must be held by every intelligent observer in this country, that if we are to prevent a recurrence of the appalling cycle of reciprocal massacres which have disgraced the Near East for so long, we must take steps at once.
Unfortunately the mental processes of those who are in charge of the Foreign Office seem to be rather slow. In an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last month he said that arrangements for assuring order during the evacuation tad been elaborated by the Allied military authorities under Marshal Foch, and he added that he could not at present describe them in detail. Those of us who feel sincerely upon this subject insist upon having in detail now what those arrangements are, if it is possible to state the details, because we are convinced, from all the information that reaches us and from hints which appear in the Press, that if this question is to be settled satisfactorily there is no time to be lost in sending out people who, though it is true they cannot prevent the massacres if such are to occur, will at least give that publicity to the details which will be worth a good deal both in informing the public outside those regions and in preventing this sort of behaviour continuing with impunity. If we are to arrive at a sincerely peaceful solution of this question; nay, more, if we are to give that body which, under the Paris decisions, is to be entrusted with the permanent pacification of those regions—if we are to give the League of Nations a chance to carry out the duties with which it is to be entrusted, we ought to give them a task which is possible and not impossible. That is why I say it is incumbent upon us at this moment to send out men to those districts who will be neither Turkophil or Turko-phobe or Grecophil or Grecophobe, but men who will have the confidence of both sides, who can speak the language of both sides, and who will be able to have a proper appreciation of affairs on the spot.
I have said enough to show the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs that, in my opinion, the conduct of affairs by his Department in those regions has not been such as to justify confidence in his Department. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division is right in his statement about the betrayal of the Greeks, but whatever may have been our conduct towards the Greeks in the past, we have no power to remedy the situation at tins moment. Whatever you may think of the past, you must adjust your present policy to what you can do with the resources you possess at the present time. An alternative would only have been' possible if we had adopted the suggestion of M. Zimmern in his latest book and had kept the British Army mobilised. Then we might have solved all the problems in various parts of the world. But we must adjust our policy to what it is possible for us to do. What we are asking the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to do is not only wise but imperative, if he and all of us who desire to see a solution of this question are not, three or four months hence, to be told it is too late. Affairs have reached such a pass in that part of the world that the whole of the miserable business is to do over again. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to this point, that we are anxious, so far as the Smyrna Villayet is concerned, that the arrangements made— and there must be, as the hon. Member for Scotland Division said, arrangements made for some evacuation in those regions—shall be so conducted that there shall be no avoidable scandal attaching to the Turkish or Greek operations in those districts. We have a very great load of responsibility on us, which is due to our past policy regarding affaire in those regions. If we can do anything—on the principle that one lamp-post is better than 10 policemen—if we can do anything to shed light on what is being done there during these critical times, when steps are being taken that may affect permanently or for many years the peoples in that part of the world, we should do it. It is a possible step, a practicable step, a wise step. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary can lay his hand on emissaries who are fully competent to do what they would be asked to do, and I implore him to communicate, not only with the Angora and Hellenic Governments, but with the French and Italian Governments, and ask them to co-operate so that at least no
avoidable responsibility may rest on us for anything that may happen in the future.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall not attempt in the few words I shall say to the House to go into any matter that is in the slightest degrees controversial. It is not difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) to advocate with his usual eloquence and fervour the cause of Greece, nor for the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) to advocate, with wit, the cause of the Turks. I am in a position where I have no desire whatever to enter into any controversy on the one side or the other, more especially because we are now sitting at a time when this subject is peculiarly delicate. The Powers at Paris have made certain proposals to the belligerent Governments. They are only proposals and advanced as recommendations to those countries. The Greek Government has accepted the proposals with only a slight technical proviso. The Turkish Government has accepted the Armistice with a proviso of a very serious character. That is the situation, and it behoves us to deal with it in a very serious way indeed. I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division was under some misapprehension as to exactly what will take place, supposing the Armistice terms are to be carried out. As I understand it, there will be an Armistice period of shorter or greater length. It may be three months or even longer. It might, if peace negotiations proceed prosperously and quickly, be less. Then there is the period of evacuation, and for that period the Powers in Paris have made important provisions. There will be men of our own race and of other Allied races in charge and in superintendence of the evacuation.

Lord R. CECIL: When are they to go?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: After the Armistice.They can go at any time they like.

Captain COOTE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true or not that the evacuation will be prior to the Armistice?

Lord R. CECIL: The information that reaches me is that the danger is actually acute at this moment. The moment the statement was made in public that those
territories were to be evacuated, the danger began quite as much to the Turks there as to the Greeks who are resident there.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: After the evacuation period, which will be a peaceful period, as I hope, the nations will appoint commissioners for the more permanent supervision of the welfare of the minorities in those districts. All I have to say to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) is this: I do not understand why these apprehensions that this pre-Armistice and Armistice period shall be one of such exceptional danger have arisen, because it must be apparent that until evacuation takes place there will be Greek armies in control of territory at present occupied by the Greeks and Turkish armies in control of the territories they occupy. I can only say to my Noble Friend and my hon. Friend, that I will bring these points before the proper quarter, but I cannot quite appreciate what is the point of danger to which my Noble Friend and my other hon. Friends have been referring. As to the subsequent stages I think the arrangements made do meet the demand of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. There will be an Allied Commission on the spot very anxiously watching and superintending the business of evacuation. I hope that later it will be agreed that the good offices of the League of Nations should be invoked. I appreciate the point of view that hon. Members have put forward. They do not want a situation created now that will make it impossible of management by the League of Nations later. I fully share their anxiety with regard to this, and I will put forward their views in the proper quarter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office does not realise what is going on at this moment in Asia Minor. We may have a very large number of Greek officers who say: "Oh, if the Government of Athens tell us to evacuate, we will not evacuate, and we will massacre the Mahommedan population." On the other hand, you have independent bands of all kinds likely to seize the opportunity of an evacuation, or a threatened evacuation, to loot promiscuously; and you have the decision of the Allied Governments
that that country, sooner or later, is to be evacuated, and handed back to the Turks. To anybody who knows what has been going on in the last five or six years it is clear there is every chance of atrocities and enormous trouble and difficulty. It is no use for distinguished foreign Ministers sitting around a table in Paris, protected by policemen, to imagine that they can put forth edicts which will be carried out as if the whole of these countries were organised on a civilised basis. Unless the Allies who are responsible—and nobody is more responsible than the British Government for sending the Greeks to Smyrna—unless they do something now, both Greeks and Mahommedans are going to be in a welter of bloodshed in that country. Something must be done. I resent very much the talk of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), who pretends that he is the only person who stands up for the Mahommedans. He says the whole atmosphere of this House is anti-Moslem. It is not. The hon. Baronet said this afternoon Turkey came into the War against us because of that atmosphere. That is perfectly untrue. German power and influence, and the fact that Russia was our ally, brought Turkey into the War against us. The language of the hon. Baronet will be used as a stick to beat the British Empire, both in India and elsewhere. He merely added fuel to the fire. He talked about the oppressed Turk. It is being said in India to-day that it is the British who are oppressing the Turk, and the hon. Baronet will be quoted in India as saying that the Turk is being oppressed. It is impossible for some of us who desire to press for a revision of the Treaty of Sevres to support him when he uses language so dangerous to the British Empire. He does nothing to help the Turk. He is only stirring up further trouble in the Near East for many years to come.
3.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman representing the Foreign Office said he hoped the League of Nations was going to see these minorities are protected. That is to say, it is going to be thrown upon the League of Nations, and if they cannot do it, what then? What is the League of Nations? The League of Nations has no funds or arms of its own. The principal consti
tuent of the League is the British Empire. Unless the British Government summon the League and unless the British Government are active in the Council of the League, nothing will be done for the protection of these minorities. The Government cannot wash their hands of responsibility by saying that the League of Nations will get us out of the trouble; and the Foreign Office need do nothing. The mere fact there is no proper liaison between our Foreign Office and the League of Nations is the first guarantee that the League of Nations is bound to fail in protecting any one of these minorities. A word as to Thrace. I agree that the immediate need is to take off the embargo which the Foreign Office has placed upon passports. The possibility of a critical situation arising there is not so immediate, but the same sort of thing will arise. In that case the Allied Ministers have proposed what anyone who has studied the country knows is bound to prove a gloomy and miserable failure. It is not merely going to result in the renewal, sooner or later, of hostilities between the Turks and the Greeks; it will inevitably result in a Balkan war. We shall have another Balkan war if that frontier is to remain as proposed by the Ministers in Paris. After all, Rumania, Jugo-Slavia and Bulgaria are vitally affected by whatever is done in regard to Eastern Thrace. When the terms proposed by the Allied Conference were published, I asked why had Bulgaria been ignored, and I received an answer from the Government Bench to the effect that Bulgaria was concerned with Western Thrace and not with Eastern Thrace. Whoever prepared that answer and said that Bulgaria has no interest in Eastern Thrace, but was only interested in Western Thrace, could have had no knowledge whatever of Balkan history and Balkin politics. The Foreign Office had better get a new man to answer questions of that kind. To say that Bulgaria has no interest in the problem of dealing with Adrianople is a travesty of the truth to anybody who remembers the first and second Balkan wars in this century. It is perfectly certain that these proposals of the Allied Ministers will fail. They are admittedly a revision of the Treaty of Sèvres, and the first of a series of revisions of the Peace Treaties made in Paris. This is the beginning of an attempt to rectify the many mistakes made
in 1919. The Foreign Office does not seem to realise that when we start to revise these Treaties, things will happen and happen on the spot, quickly, and they are taking no steps to protect people to whom we have undertaken moral obligations, by sending proper officers and a suitable number of observers to see what is going on, and to keep the Foreign Office and the House informed on these matters.

IRELAND.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: We have listened to speeches of moving eloquence and of great knowledge with regard to difficulties in the Near East, and fears have been expressed as to the possibility of massacres taking place. I make no apology for asking the House to consider a state of affairs which is indeed serious where there is killing and the possibility of massacre right at our very gates, namely, in Ireland; and asking the Government for information as to its intentions. When the revolutionary change of policy with regard to Ireland took place, it will be remembered the Prime Minister told us that the reason he had decided to undertake that policy was because in his opinion Mr. Michael Collins and Mr. Arthur Griffith were in a position to deliver the goods. The idea was that the people of Ireland were behind the campaign of terrorism which had taken place, and that it was better to surrender to that fact and to grant, by a great act of generosity, a policy to Ireland which would heal the sore for ever and bestow the joys of peace upon the sister isle. Many of us at that time were violently opposed to that policy and we remain opposed to it to-day: firstly, because we are surrendering to crime what none of us ever suggested before we should concede to reason; secondly, because we believe there is one unpardonable sin and that is for a governing nation to withdraw from any country where it believes chaos is going to follow on that withdrawal; and thirdly, because we believed it was wrong to adopt a policy which admitted that might was right.
We warned Parliament at the time, with all the strength of our convictions, that by taking this path the Government were taking the risk of very grave dangers arising in Ireland, and we said quite frankly, that we did not believe that the re-birth of Ireland was likely to
be a success if the new Ireland was to be born in such a cradle. The Government, however, treated it as a fait accompli, and that gentlemen in Ireland were called into the councils of the Government. They came to the Conference, but they came on the invitation of the Government, owing to the fact that they held an apparently responsible position in Ireland, and what I think we are sometimes inclined to forget is, that Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins climbed to that position and gained that authority as avowed republicans. I could never understand how it could be possible that these gentlemen, who have won their position in Ireland as republicans, should carry out with any success the Free State policy, but the Government were so anxious to hasten the peace in Ireland that they withdrew all the forces of law and order and protection in Ireland before any new authority was set up to maintain the law. That was a great mistake, from which we are suffering now. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the Government actually confessed having quitted Ireland, and removed the forces of law whilst they were still the only Government vested with any authority in that country. The result has been, as we told them it would be, that chaos exists in Ireland, and let us face the facts. There is no real Government in Ireland at the present time.

Mr. LINDSAY: In Southern Ireland.

Mr. J. JONES: What about Belfast? You shut up!

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The Irish Republican Army has largely reaffirmed its republican oath, and is engaged in an irresponsible kind of brigandage throughout the length and breadth of the South and West of Ireland, and the result is that we see in Ireland at the present moment a position of affairs in which that country is daily drifting nearer to civil war in the South and West, and religious war in the North. I know that I might be accused of using strong language on this subject, because I feel very strongly, but these are not my words. These are the words, and this is the summing up, of the whole of the Press, which urged the Government once to take this policy in Ireland. The "Times" is foremost in warning the country to-day that Ireland is on the brink of civil war, and even Mr. Garvin is wringing his hands the last
three Sundays and pointing out that, unless Mr. Michael Collins takes steps to use force, you are going to have civil war in Ireland. Unhappily, this is also true, and Mr. Michael Collins himself—I am sure the Colonial Secretary has read his speech a few days ago—says that civil war can only be saved by a miracle.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): Complete the quotation. He said it can only be saved by a miracle, unless Mr. de Valera changes his tactics.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I am very grateful to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he attach any importance to those words? Does he believe that Mr. de Valera is going to change his tactics? Has he read Mr. de Valera's statement in the last few days? It is a mockery. Mr. Collins has stated that unless Mr. de Valera changes his tactics there will be civil war, and I will leave it at that. I think that is quite sufficient. To this policy we have abandoned 250,000 loyalists in the South and West of Ireland. These people at the present time are being fined by irresponsible persons—not by the agents of the Free State Government—they are having their motor cars, their horses, and their carts taken from them, they are being evicted from their farms, they are being persecuted in every possible way, and the only consolation they have is that when we come to this House and ask the Colonial Secretary what he is going to do to try and prevent these crimes, he says, "I am making representations on the subject to Mr. Collins or the Free State Government," when we know that the Free State Government, unfortunately, is futile and hopeless at the present time. Meanwhile, with the ordinary civil population crime is not so frightful. We do not notice it because they are never recorded in the Press, but this is going on all the time.
At the same time, we have the appalling spectacle of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I think everybody in this House, no matter what his views are on the Irish question, must feel deeply moved by the present state of affairs with regard to these trusted servants of the British Empire. After all, we have heard some criticism sometimes—I think,
rather hastily made—against the servants of the Crown in Ireland, but of the Royal Irish Constabulary generally there have been very few criticisms. For many, many years they have upheld the honour of this country, and upheld the law in Ireland, and everyone knows that for the last few years they have been through a perfect hell, worse than in war, never knowing when they were going to meet the assassin's knife, and all the time isolated and scattered throughout the country. These gallant souls are being done to death day by day. I believe I am right in saying that, since the Truce, 19 have been murdered and something like 50 wounded or assaulted, and in the last few days there has been an increasing policy of burning their houses down when they return home, and throwing their wives and children into the streets. This is an appalling state of affairs, and it is one we cannot afford to neglect in this House. We want a rapid decision. I would like to read a letter which has just been put into my hands from someone who knows:
Twelve hundred men, with their families, who have been disbanded and are coming over here to England, have been threatened by the Irish Republican Army and told to leave the country at once, before Easter. Some have even left before they have received their pay, and are sleeping in churches over here, and pawning their belongings. The authorities at Ilford have offered the Town Hall, which will accommodate 50 women and children. It appears that the most urgent question of the moment is to get the Government to lend vacant barracks or aerodromes, and to instruct these wretched people where to go.
No one will forget the way in which this country welcomed the refugees from Belgium in the Great War, but the case of these men is not understood. We are told they were treated very generously. It is true they will receive a few shillings a week more than persons receiving the unemployment donation, but what is that when they have no roof to cover them? They are coming over here not knowing where to turn. Everyone knows the state of the Labour market. I do urge the Government immediately to make arrangements to place at the disposal of any men of the Royal Irish Constabulary or their families vacant hutments, of which there are many in this country, and to see that these people are housed free of cost until they have time to turn round.
I have only one more word to say with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I myself have met many of these people. They are in a very difficult position. I am not asking for the pity of the House. I submit it is a question of honour, and it is our bounden duty, cost what it may, to see that these people are housed, and allowed to exist, and are not driven to take refuge in churches or elsewhere. All this has happened because we ran away from Ireland before an alternative Government was set up. Whether we agree with the policy or not, that seems to me to be the real mistake that was made. We were in such a hurry to get out, and there was no machinery to carry on the Government. We are adjourning now for a fortnight, and anything may happen in that fortnight. It looks as if trouble is boiling up on every hand in Ireland, and for some reason or other, Easter-time is a fatal one in that unhappy country. Meantime the Prime Minister is away trying to restore decimated Russia, and calling for the peace of Europe, while this ghastly affair is right at our gates at home. What is the Government going to do? Are they going to sit still while the Republicans seize the reins of Government in Ireland? I hope that is an extreme possibility, but we are entitled to ask what is the Government going to do supposing—and I understand even De Valera's day is passing— the more extreme elements of his movement endeavour to bring about a coup d'etat and seize the reins of Government, supposing they take any steps to form a Republic in Ireland? Some of us have been very unpopular with our own friends because we felt deeply on this question, and because we feared that this state of affairs was going to happen. We said that it was a slippery path along which we were going. I think we are entitled to ask now, seeing the situation is such as it is, that this House should be informed before it rises precisely where the Government stand, and what it is going to do in the event of the situation becoming worse.

Field - Marshal Sir HENRY WILSON: The few words I desire to address to the House will not take long. May I, first of all, urge the Government to act on the lines indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) in so far as the Royal Irish Constabulary is concerned. I myself think
that the least the Government can do is either to pitch camps for these men, or to use old hutments where these men and their families can go for a month or two until they find new employment. It is all very well to say that they have 30s. or£2 a week, but a strange man coming over to England finds it exceedingly difficult to get a house, or lodging, for himself, his wife, and children whilst he is looking about for work. I have two proposals to make to the Government. The first is this: So far as I can see, the danger that Mr. Collins is in at the present moment is that Mr. de Valera may declare a republic hostile to Mr. Collins' Government. As I understand the position, Mr. Collins is a friend of our present Cabinet. It seems to me that it would only be a friendly act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary now to announce publicly what he will do if a republic is declared, so that Mr. Collins and the people of Ireland will know what are the Government's intentions. That is only fair to Mr. Collins, I think.
My second proposal is that in this fortnight's holiday which is coming the custom which prevails with members of the Government should be applied to Ireland. It is the custom for Cabinet Ministers to visit those parts of the British Empire and the Dominions with which their office is concerned. I suggest that during this coming fortnight those Cabinet Ministers who are concerned with the administration of the Irish Acts should visit Ireland. My country is supposed to be a savage and barbaric country, but really we have railways and roads, and telegraphs, and telephones, and even hotels. It is also true that Belfast is not so far as Gairloch, nor is Cork so far as Genoa. I, therefore, suggest that in the coming fortnight some members of the Cabinet should go over to Ireland, to North, South, East, and West and see for themselves the condition of the country.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not propose to dwell upon the last suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. Although my friendship for the Government is only of a modified kind, I do not suggest that that very extreme measure shall be taken. I do, however, welcome this discussion. I quite recognise that there are disadvantages in discussing administra-
tive matters in Ireland at the present moment, but I feel myself that the situation there is a very serious one, and that a democratic form of government open to free discussion is really the essence of the whole thing. If we were to separate for a fortnight without discussing this matter I do not think the House of Commons would be discharging its duty to the country. We have had a very gloomy picture drawn of Ireland by my two hon. and gallant Friends. I am not in a position to say whether it is accurate or not, but I cannot help hoping that it is overcharged in some particulars. It is certainly a very melancholy state of things.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) says there is no Government in the South and West of Ireland, and apparently in that view he is supported by observations made by responsible persons to the effect that there is imminent danger of civil war in Ireland. He says, and I am bound, from such information as reaches me, rather to confirm this statement, that the loyalist population in the South and West of Ireland is in parts of it undergoing great hardships at the present moment and is in considerable danger for the future. Attention has been drawn to the terrible conditions which afflict the disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and on that point the hon. and gallant Member will have the sympathy of all the Members of this House, wherever they may sit. That is the present position. We have been told by the Government that in introducing this very great change in the government of Ireland, a change which I have supported, they have shown the utmost prescience and care in choosing exactly the right moment when it could be most successfully launched. The House will remember how strong the Prime Minister was on this point in December last, when he said:
Statesmanship consists not merely in the wisdom of your proposals, but in the choosing of the right moment.
Later on the Prime Minister says:
There were moments when we all feared that we proposed a Conference too soon, and if any of those who think that we might have done it a year ago could have just peeped through and seen the last hours which ended in agreement, they would have wondered whether, on the whole, we might not have
waited a little longer. You have done it, but only just. I believe that it could not have been done had you not faced Ireland with the accomplished fact of the rights of Ulster …
The fact of the matter is that public opinion on neither side was quite right. It was only when it came to be realised by everybody that prolonging the agony would only mean more loss, devastation, irritation, and trouble, that the moment came when men of reason on both sides said, 'Let us put an end to it.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; col. 47, Vol. 149.]
I have been ready, for reasons which seem to me sufficient, and I am still ready to support this policy of the Government, but, when I am asked not only to do that but also to pay a tribute to the Government for having so well selected the time for this change, then, with the greatest respect, I am unable to give that tribute. I do not know whether it is realised, but I imagine it must be realised by the Government, that the change they were instituting was one which it was exceedingly difficult to carry out. They were going to hand over the Government of Ireland to men who, whatever their ability, were absolutely untrained in administration. They were going to break with the traditions of many many years. They were going to dislocate, necessarily dislocate, the whole machinery of Government. My hon. and gallant Friend says that they ought to have waited till they had another Government ready to take the place of that which they were displacing. They had to do what they did in a great hurry, or otherwise nothing would have been done at all. That is their case. The real truth is that to give a chance of success for this great experiment, an experiment which I, at any rate, desire most earnestly should succeed, they ought to have done it in conditions of peace and not in conditions of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary told us recently that the condition of affairs which prevailed a year ago in Ireland was what he called retrospective war. I do not quite know what the phrase means.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That was not the phrase I used. I said that what occurred in Ireland was a revolution which was viewed retrospectively as civil war.

Lord R. CECIL: I admit that the phrase is much clearer as the right hon. Gentleman puts it. That is to say, it was civil war, but it was not so treated. That is an astounding statement to make. There
were a great many things done by the Government that could not possibly be defended by the Government, and, as a matter of fact, it was not civil war, or, at any rate, it was not wholly civil war. I have never seen any advantage in mixing up facts and in trying to conceal, by using different words, the real truth of the matter. You may have great sympathy with the desires of Sinn Feiners, and you may hold that they were right to struggle to free their country from English domination, but no one, unless he absolutely chooses to confuse moral values, can doubt that the methods by which they attempted to achieve their object were the methods of murder and nothing else. That was the first thing. The concession was made after a long campaign of murder, a campaign which sapped, as such campaigns must necessarily sap, the very foundations on which civilised society is based. It was much worse than that, because, in addition to the murders, you had the policy of reprisals. My hon. and gallant Friend talks of the present policy of the Government as a surrender to crime. The real surrender to crime was made when the Government began to imitate the crimes of others. I see that the Home Secretary evidently regards it as a joke.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I was not laughing at anything the Noble Lord was saying.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not know whether the House remembers what these reprisals were. I am not going to attempt to enter into the whole history of them. But they amounted to organised arson and organised murder by the agents of the Crown. That has been proved. It is not disputed. Creameries were burnt down wholesale. Part of the city of Cork was burned down and looted. Murders were organised in the most brutal way. It is not disputed, it is admitted, it has been stated by some of the judicial officers of the Crown. It has never been denied.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Those were the statements of the I.R.A.

Lord R. CECIL: What about Balbriggan? It was actually proved——

Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole of this matter has been repeatedly made per-
fectly clear. When officers of the Crown, military and police, were ambushed and murdered under circumstances of the grossest treachery, it was quite impossible to prevent the police and military making reprisals on their own account. It would exceed the limits of human nature, however lamentable or however regrettable.

Lord R. CECIL: That is the usual suggestion made by the Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And you are making the usual suggestion of the I.R.A.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman even now grant an impartial inquiry into these matters? We have repeatedly asked for one, and have always been refused. The Government will not even publish the results of such inquiries as were made. This pretence that these reprisals were carried out without the knowledge of or instigation by the Government really will not do. I say deliberately that in the summer of 1920 the Government, or some members of it, including, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman himself, indicated to the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland that they might take the law into their own hands. That has been constantly stated in this House. It has been said outside, and it has never been denied.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly deny it.

Lord R. CECIL: Did you deny it at the time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly deny that the Government at any time authorised the armed forces of the Crown in Ireland to take the law into their own hands.

Lord R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny there was a meeting of a Committee of the Cabinet in June, 1920, at which the question was considered, and some indication of that kind was given to the armed forces of the Crown—I do not say in those words, but in some form or another—that they might take action outside the law, and that they would not be reproved.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know on what ground the Noble Lord bases these insulting charges against the Government of his own country. I do not know on what authority he states that a meeting of
a Committee of the Cabinet was held. I have never heard of such a meeting, and if he has any information on that subject he is perfectly at liberty to publish it.

Lord R. CECIL: It has been published. The right hon. Gentleman forgets the history of this matter. It was published directly afterwards, I think in August or September of 1920, and in October I drew attention in this House to the statement. I recited it, and begged the Government to deny it. I did not believe it; I thought it incredible, and I begged them to deny it. They would not deny it. They made speech after speech, but they never denied it. Lord Grey and I wrote a letter to the papers, in which we called attention to the matter, and there was no denial. I again drew attention to it in October, 1920, and the matter was put over and over again in this House. My Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) asked direct questions upon it. I will read the last question, which was asked by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham on the 10th March of last year. My Noble Friend asked the Prime Minister:
Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter of the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of England deploring the fact that our rulers have latterly decided to meet crime with crime in Ireland; that they have first condoned and then actually authorised on many occasions a policy of reprisals, not carried out with the remorseless but ordered rigour of martial law, but by means of indiscriminate and unregulated shooting and looting; and that, as a result, British rule is a byword and a scoff in every country in Europe and across the Atlantic; and whether he will forthwith put an end to a policy so destructive of the good name of Britain?
And the Prime Minister replied:
I have not yet seen the letter referred to, but if the Noble Lord's summary of it is accurate, I cannot accept its description of British rule in Ireland. The contribution would have been more helpful had he demonstrated in what other way crime in Ireland could be stopped without a complete surrender to murder."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1921; col. 633, Vol. 139.]
I say that after this accusation had been made publicly in this House over and over again, and after the direct charge that was made in my Noble Friend's question on that occasion, this House had a right to have the matter answered fully
and frankly if there was not a word of truth in it. If the Government have merely given an answer by the card, or a mere evasion altogether, I say they have no right to object if people draw the conclusion that this accusation must be, in substance, true. I could enlarge still more on the truth of this accusation, but I have said enough to establish what I desired to establish. Whatever the degree of the Government's responsibility—and I cannot admit that, quite apart from all this, the Government can evade responsibility for what was done in Ireland by their agents—what is the result of this miserable, melancholy policy? It has converted what the Government told us was a body of 200 or 300 gunmen, who were responsible for the first outrages, into a body of, I think we have been told, some 30,000 men enrolled in the Irish Republican Army—I am taking what I believe to be the Government figure. That was a very serious effect of their policy, but, much worse than that, it utterly destroyed—and that is one of the things from which we are suffering at the present time—it utterly destroyed the moral influence of the British Government in Ireland; and finally, it taught a fatal lesson to those lawless elements in Ireland who are now responsible for the whole of the trouble there. I say that the carrying out of this policy has been the most fatal and the most indefensible thing that the British Government has done in Ireland for 120 years; and if we have, unhappily, the position which exists to-day, it is largely due to the unhappy course of conduct which lasted between the summer of 1920 and the summer of 1921. I hope earnestly, in spite of everything, that peace will be re-established, that this experiment will succeed, and that, however great the difficulties may be, some means will be found by those who are directing Irish affairs to give peace at length to that unhappy island. But I do say, when we are asked to express our admiration for the way in which this policy has been carried out, that that is an admiration which I do not feel and which I do not believe posterity will share.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not complain that attention has been called to this subject on the eve of the Easter Adjournment. I quite understand the object
which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) had in view when he raised it, and I understand and sympathise keenly with his anxiety on behalf of the unionists in the South of Ireland and especially on behalf of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I also understand the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), but I do ask myself what object of public utility can be served by the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) and the very long stream of vindictive allegations with which he has affronted the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Noble Lord was one of those whose fine sensibilities were outraged by many terrible, brutal, ferocious aspects of the warfare that was proceeding in Ireland. Many other people shared that abhorrence, but when the truce was made and the Treaty was signed almost every single one of those persons swung round and did everything in his power, and is to-day doing everything in his power, to bring the new policy to success. Not one of them has thought it worth while to go back into the past and try to rake up something to bring about a feeling of ill-will at the present time. They have been consistent in seeking peace whether we agreed with them or did not. The Noble Lord has only been consistent in finding fault. He finds fault with the rough brutalities of the struggle. Equally he finds fault with many of the inconveniences and embarrassments that resulted.
Whatever is the series of events presented to his judgment they lead only to one conclusion, that is that they are a new means, a new opportunity, of condemning the Government. He told us that he was not going to pay any tribute to the Government, that he could not pay any tribute to us, over our Irish policy. If we had depended during the last few years, for any foundation on which we could conduct the affairs of this country and this Empire, upon tributes which were paid to us by the Noble Lord we should indeed have collapsed. We have certainly got on without them. The country as a whole, the British nation as a whole, will succeed in getting on without tributes of the kind which he paid to them this afternoon in making a series of the most serious and offensive allega-
tions upon evidence which he has not made the slightest attempt to submit. Nobody ever concealed the ugly aspects of this Irish struggle. Nobody conceals in Belfast to-day the hideous aspects which a campaign of murder and reprisals is bound to present. Everyone knows that armed men will not stand by and see one after another of their number shot down by treachery, without to some extent taking the law into their own hands. Although the Government did their best to restrain them it is perfectly true that we did not punish with full severity persons who had been mixed up in this sort of affair. We have never concealed that. How could we punish them while there was no other redress open to them, while no court would convict, while no criminals were arrested, while there was no means whatever of affording these men the satisfaction of a sense of self-preservation when they saw comrades weltering in blood from a foul blow? I fully agree that one evil leading to another brought the whole of our policy in Ireland and in the world generally into gross discredit. I have never concealed it. It was not because we had not the strength to crush Ireland, for we had overwhelming strength. But the British Empire cannot afford to be drawn continually by these brutal Irish feuds into a position dishonouring to its general and long-maintained reputation.
The speech of the Noble Lord might well furnish material for the most extravagant perorations of Mr. de Valera. No doubt in reading the speech Mr. de Valera will be greatly refreshed. It is with the more fruitful and the more accurately directed observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth and of the hon. and gallant Field Marshal the Member for Northy Down that I will endeavour to deal in the few moments remaining. Let me say, first of all, about the Royal Irish Constabulary that there is no word of praise for the force with which the Government do not associate themselves, and that there is no word of anxiety about their present position to which the Government are not prepared to listen. But these men have extremely good pensions. Their pensions compare favourably with those of any other class of public servant ever pensioned in this country, or in any other country in the world. A constable of five years' service, a young
man of 25 in perfectly bodily health, gets nearly£90 a year for life, and he has the whole of the energies of his nature with which to earn additions. The pensions have been fixed on a scale far in excess of anything that men in the Army, Navy, Civil Service or English police would receive. But we must recognise that these men, in a large proportion of cases, will have to leave their native land and begin life in a new country. We must recognise that the next three or four months will be months in which Ireland, denuded of police and military forces, and with a new Government not fully possessed as yet of the means of maintaining order, and with Courts functioning only imperfectly—that Ireland will be a very dangerous place for some of these men. Many offences, perhaps, will be committed against them contrary to the Treaty. We have, therefore, offered these men refuge in this country. Any men who like to come here have only to apply, and they will get tickets for this country, where they can draw their pensions, and they will also get the benefits of the various schemes which have been worked out in great detail.
But I do not exclude the idea of making a camp in Great Britain, at any rate, in the next few months, and if there be any general demand for it by a large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I think it certainly should be considered. I believe myself that the conditions in Ireland which make it dangerous for these men are temporary. It is true, and it is a terrible fact, that 19 of these men have been shot dead since the Treaty. Since that date they have been under the safeguard of the Irish people as confirmed and guaranteed by their duly-accredited plenipotentiaries and representatives in their own Dail Eireann, and that these men should have been murdered in this brutal way without anybody being apprehended or brought to justice, undoubtedly constitutes a stain upon the national record of Ireland which, I am convinced, as the years go by, Ireland will herself remove in the only way it can be removed, namely, by the patient, unrelenting pursuit of the assassins and the execution upon them of Irish justice. That is the only attitude His Majesty's Government will ever take up. These are matters that will not be allowed to be
forgotten. These are matters that must be pursued over the course of many years, and I am convinced that no nation endeavouring to maintain civilised government and institutions can allow its plighted word to be brought under insult and calumny, and allow those guilty of cruel and brutal murder to go unpunished.
4.0 p.m.
I now touch upon the more general questions which have been raised. It is, I think, too soon to mock or jeer. Two months ago it was too soon to rejoice. It is still too soon to lament. It is a source of some satisfaction to some people to be able to say when some untoward event happens, "I told you so," but I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth is too good a patriot to get satisfaction out of that. Let me say to him and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down that I do not think the possibilities of failure in Ireland exceed the possibilities of success. I fully recognise the very serious, chaotic state of affairs that exists. It has not been attended by any great loss of life, but there has been a great number of instances of petty tyranny, of defiance of the Constitution, of instability greatly affecting the prosperity of the country and the peace of the inhabitants. But it seems to me that these conditions were almost inseparable from the decision to begin to withdraw the troops and the Royal Irish Constabulary from the centres at which they were and concentrate them at certain quarters. I suppose that if Ireland should develop ultimately into a welter, in which it certainly is not at the present time, great reproaches will be made to the Government for taking away the Army and Constabulary and concentrating them before they had made sure that the electors had affirmed the Treaty and the Government installed had full powers and the machinery for maintaining order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I think it will be one of those questions which might justifiably be raised, but we must consider what would have happened if we had not done so. The Constabulary would have got mixed up in the quarrel between the two sides. Those Irishmen who lean for support on the Treaty would have been discredited by the others of their fellow-Irishmen, and the same
things, such as the horrible murders of members of the Constabulary, would have happened. We have acted in this matter on the advice and at the request of those upon whom we have devolved responsibility for governing Ireland. They strongly urged that the troops should be withdrawn, and we have therefore concentrated the troops at certain points. They urged upon us that only in this way would the people of Ireland be free, and that if Great Britain intended to carry out the Treaty the responsibility for governing the country had now passed out of their hands. I believe, on the whole, that of the two alternatives we have taken the right one.
Let us see what the situation is. There is a struggle going on, a great struggle between Irishmen who want to accept the Treaty and the Irish Free State as a fair working arrangement upon which they can build the future of their country, and those Irishmen who desire, above all things, to declare an independent Republic and break away altogether from the British Empire. The first, we may say, are animated by the love of Ireland, while the others are animated by their undying hatred of this country. In this struggle between the two forces there have been, if I may use a sporting term, three rounds. The first round was fought in the Dail between the representatives who have been elected by the Irish constituents. By a very narrow majority the Treaty was carried. Those who were devoted to the National Assembly declared that the nation would put right what the assembly had defaulted. For at least a month Mr. de Valera and his friends—Mr. Erskine Childers and the rest of what I may call the hate party— went about the country reproaching the Irish Provisional Government with having betrayed the Republic. They seemed to expect that merely by making these accusations of heresy, of failure, and of deserting the national cause, they would gain immediately the sense of being supported by the great mass of the Irish people. But in the course of a month it became perfectly clear that a free election could have only one result. I say that it became perfectly clear, not because I am merely guided by the opinions of those in favour of the Treaty, but because of the view taken by those bitterly opposed to the Treaty. They were perfectly clear
that the Irish people were not with them. The Irish people wanted to take the Irish Free State and to make a success of it, to make it prosperous and to live on that basis. That was, and is, their wish and it was not until this realisation came home with overwhelming force to Mr. de Valera and his confederates that they then began to use the methods of violence and of anarchy which have disgraced the last three weeks. It was not until they felt that the majority of the nation was against them that they began to talk of wading through blood and of establishing a Mexican régime.
That began the third round of the contest, which has lasted now for three or four weeks. There have been a great many affronts offered to the Provisional Government and, if I may say so, to the dignity and self-respect of the Irish nation, by individuals and groups of individuals who have turned the Free State troops out of their barracks and have shot some of the officers engaged in defending property confided to their charge, or who have defied the authority of the lawfully constituted chiefs who have the military forces in their charge. There have been many attempts to obstruct public meetings, many attempts to terrorise or to gag the freedom of the Press—one being an outrage where the printing machinery of a great newspaper was smashed to pieces by sledge-hammers—trains have been thrown off the lines and even Members of the Government making speeches have been received with violence and opprobrium when they were at a most critical moment in their country's fortunes, seeking frankly to speak before their fellow countrymen and put grave issues to them. I am not quite sure at the present time that those responsible for these outrages are very satisfied with their result. The matter is obscure, but at the same time the impression and sense which I have derived from watching this quarrel is that Irish opinion is still more firm against those who are doing these things, and I may say I base that opinion on, among other things, the admirable memorandum issued by one of the principal parties in Ireland and a party known to be extreme in other ways, i.e., the Irish Labour party. It is a memorandum of sterling good sense. I also observe a very considerable rallying of public opinion to the Government.

Mr. J. JONES: The Labour party can govern sometimes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In this case the Labour party are supporting the Government, an arrangement of which I highly approve. I am always very glad to accept that support whenever it is forthcoming, and to make proper recognition of it. We see that thousands of people—many hundreds of people—make their way from miles around to crossroads in spite of roads being encumbered by the felling of trees, to attend public meetings in support of the Treaty, although at these public meetings they know there will be an element there armed with revolvers, and that some serious incident may easily occur.

Mr. J. JONES: That is the reason why they go. They are Irish.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We observe also that the Press of Ireland, almost without exception — all the influential Press throughout Ireland, local as well as the Press of the capital—maintains a most vehement and spirited conflict with the forces of anarchy and disorder. I must avow a strong confidence in the great laws of human society when they are allowed to work in freedom. I must avow a confidence in the educative value of responsibility. Everyone in Ireland can see that their fortune is in their own hands. What conceivable inducement have the Irish nation as a whole to impoverish themselves, to degrade themselves, to make themselves a laughing stock before the whole world, to play into the hands of every enemy they have got in every quarter of the world, to make themselves a bye-word, to vindicate everything that has been said of them by their enemies during all these by-gone generations— what conceivable inducement have they for that? I believe there is a growing rally of public opinion in Ireland, that it is asserting itself, and that it will continue to assert itself. As to whether I should like to have seen the Government in Ireland take this measure or that measure, I am bound to say that I have the feeling that they know their business better than we do. I am sure they do not intend to let themselves be dispossessed of the responsibilities which the Irish nation has confided to them
through the votes of its accredited representatives, and I believe that if they persevere and hold firmly to their task, as their strength gathers and grows, so they will wear down this attempt to wreck the prosperity of Ireland, and they will get to an election in which a national pronouncement can be made. I still think that, in spite of all the uncertainties which overhang the future, the prospect which I have indicated is the most probable at the present time.
There is only one other thing I wish to say before I sit down, because it is an urgent matter. My hon. and gallant Friend has asked that we should announce now, publicly, what we will do if a Republic is declared. Well, I am not sure that that would be very wise.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Why not?

Mr. J. JONES: Threaten Ireland!

Mr. CHURCHILL: The kind of elements who are attacking the Irish Government at the present time—the National Government of Ireland—are the kind of elements that feed on opposition to England, and if they had the feeling that in a very cheap way they were daring England and daring the British Empire it would give them some bragging fame, and it would not deter them from any course which they were likely to take. In my view, we should not announce exactly what we should do. I am very anxious indeed to avoid the appearance of putting duress upon the Irish people, and therefore I think it is sufficient for us to reiterate, what we have said again and again, that we will not in any circumstances tolerate the creation of an independent Republic, of a republican form of Government in Ireland.
I do not know what will happen. Many people think that a republic will be proclaimed in some part of the country by some persons more or less irresponsible, but in Ireland almost everything happens when you do not expect it, and anything which any large number of people expect never happens. Therefore, perhaps nothing will occur at Easter. I do not think it is to be expected that the existing Provisional Government will be violently overborne by revolution in the next fortnight. If it were, it is clear that a very grave decision would be
forced upon the Government at very short notice, and those matters have been carefully and seriously considered by the Government for some time; but I do not think that that is at all likely. As to whether some irresponsible individuals might call themselves a republic in this or that part of the country, that is another question, and in regard to that we should have to see what the circumstances were. But I repeat—and this is the last word I have to say, not because it is any news to the House, but because it again reaffirms our position—we stand by the Treaty. Whatever happens in Ireland, however many years of misfortune there may be in Ireland, whatever trouble, the Treaty defines what we think should be the relations between the two countries, and we are prepared, and will be prepared, to hand over to any responsible body of Irishmen capable of governing the country the full powers which the Treaty confers. Further than that, in no circumstances will we go, and if a republic is set up, that is a form of government in Ireland which the British Empire can in no circumstances whatever tolerate or agree to.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the whole of the Irish question. I am not one of those who believe that the policy carried out by His Majesty's Government is the right policy, but I do not wish to add anything to debar any possible success which that policy might attain. I was very much surprised to hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). It seems to me he was raking over the dustbin of old Irish Debates in order to find some tin-cans to throw at the Government. I do not know whether he realises the fearful harm done to this country in America and other places by speeches like that, which try to prove that the Government of this country deliberately engaged in a campaign of murder in Ireland. As I know, all that the Government did before the truce was to authorise, in certain cases, certain military reprisals—a very different thing from the indiscriminate shooting and looting to which the Noble Lord referred. But, at any rate, speeches like that do no good now. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, we have passed that period, and even those who
are bitterly opposed to the Government in their policy of the present time, want Ireland left alone at present to see what will happen.
I wish to bring forward the case, in rather more detail, of the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and particularly the treatment of the Auxiliary Cadets. First of all, as regards the disbandment of the regular force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman has just said they were treated very generously, and had very good pensions given them, better than soldiers and sailors, and better than the police force in England, and so on. I do not think that is quite an accurate picture. The Royal Irish Constabulary always were recruited with the promise that they would get a very good pension, because of the onerous duties they had to carry out, and which they have carried out in the past to the admiration, not only of their own country, but of this country for the last two or three years. The Royal Irish Constabulary say that every time they ask for a more generous offer than has been made to them, they have been met by the Government with the statement that they have got even better treatment than the former Government promised in the Home Rule Bill of 1914. The facts are these. In 1914 the men who retired were, just as now, offered 12 years to be added to their period of service to count for pension, so as to give them a greater pension than otherwise they would have. In 1914 these men were allowed to serve six years with full pay and allowances, and also they were not obliged to leave the country, because if the Home Rule Bill of 1914 had gone through these men would have been able to settle down in their country and not have been disturbed.
The conditions, however, are now entirely different. In the first place they are not allowed to serve for six years, and in the second place they have to bring their wives and children away for a time. I hope that may be the case, and that it may only be for a few months, though it looks as though they will have to come away altogether. They have put forward a demand, or rather expressed a request, that they should be granted a lump sum of one year's pay, which would enable them to have enough funds in hand to
bring their families over here, or if they desire to do so, to emigrate to one of the Dominions and start life afresh there. They say, and I think truly, that they deserve that in view of the repeated promises to which they have been treated most generously. The Prime Minister, speaking last year, said:
The loyalty and gallantry of their services had been such that it would be a dishonour to any Government or any party to neglect their interests.
That is the point. I want to ask the Chief Secretary, if he replies, to deal with this point: Will the Government give a year's pay or a substantial part of a year's pay to these men as a bonus for disturbance instead of one month—or two months in the case of the men who have over three children—which at present is being offered? Let the Government give the men a more handsome donation, a lump sum—that is as regards the regular Royal Irish Constabulary.
I want next to deal with the case of the auxiliary cadets of the Royal Irish Constabulary. We had some Debate on this matter on 20th of February, and the Chief Secretary stated that he would look into the matter again and would issue a White Paper setting forth details. He has looked into the matter, but he had done nothing whatever to remedy what, I maintain, and I believe the House will agree with me in maintaining, is an injustice to these auxiliary cadets. There are a class of something like a little under 400 cadets who are affected by this particular point. I will just recall to the memory of the House in a few sentences what are the exact facts. On 30th May last year the Government, seeing that the state of affairs in Ireland was likely to continue, and not, apparently, at that time having in their minds the offer of the truce, asked these cadets to re-engage for another year's service. An Order was sent out, first of all, on 23rd May from headquarters, which said:
Re-enlistment for a further period of 12 months may be made … the matter must be considered before the end of July next.
Subsequently another Order was issued from the Beggars Bush barracks on 30th May, which said:
Re-enlistment for a further period of 12 months may now be made, but the re-enlistment will not be later than 31st July, 1921.
Individuals may not sign at a later date than 31st July, 1922.
Acting upon that, several hundreds of these cadets did sign on and undertook to serve until the 31st July, 1922, this year. Can it be believed that eight weeks after that Order, and after these re-enlistments had been carried out, an Order was issued stating that
The Chief of Police directs that he cannot confirm any re-engagement of members of the division who have had at the time of re-enlistment less than 9 months' service with the division.
I am aware that the truce happened in the meantime, but this contract with these men, whose signatures were witnessed by two witnesses, and whose names had appeared in Orders as having contracted to serve two years, is repudiated by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that these men have been treated generously and honourably. I say that the terms may have been generous from his point of view, but it was not only dishonourable to repudiate the contract, but it was positively dishonest. I do not believe there is a single case where the Government of this country, having made a binding contract of this kind, has so flagrantly, openly, and without the slightest shame repudiated that contract. I know one case of a young officer who was offered a place in the Ministry of Pensions at a good salary, and because he had signed this contract he refused the appointment, with the result that he fell between two stools. His contract was repudiated by the Government as regards the Irish Constabulary, and he also lost the position offered to him in the Ministry of Pensions. There are many other cases where men could have looked out for work, but they knew that they were bound to serve until the 21st of July this year. Those are the salient facts, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it very hard to dispose of them. I suggest that it is not too late yet for justice and right to be done, and for the right hon. Gentleman to agree to honour those contracts, because it is a much greater thing than just the amount of the money. The real thing at stake is the honour of the British Government.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The question which has just been raised by my hon. And gallant Friend is a very
serious one. With regard to what has been stated about the Royal Irish Constabulary I cannot promise my Hon. and gallant Friend anything further. The terms of disbandment are before the House. There is no question whatever of generosity as they are better than the terms of the Act of 1920 which stand in every respect. The real point about the Royal Irish Constabulary is not the advancing of larger sums of money, but so to deal with these men and their wives and children that their lives and their pensions are secure. I can assure the House that the Government is doing everything in its power to contend with both these difficulties. As for the Auxiliary cadets, I have gone into the whole matter of the cadets who feel that they have been dishonourably treated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman omitted to read the first Order dealing with this question on the 16th May to the following effect:
The service of temporary cadets who are Hearing the termination "—
Those are the effective words—
of their first year in the Auxiliary Division may be extended for a further term of six months.
That expression, "nearing the termination of their first year," was interpreted by a junior officer as meaning all members whether they had served, three, six, nine, or ten months in the force.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: This is a very important point. The ruling I meant was the second one, which was an amplification of the first, as is clearly pointed out in the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper, which says:
Following further representations from the office of the Chief of Police, the following further ruling was given by the Under-Secretary's Office on the 23rd May. 'Re-enlistments for a further period of twelve months may be made for the present, but the matter must be considered before, the end of July next.' 
It said nothing about men nearing the end of their engagements.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is the first Order which governs the whole situation, and in this I have the support and the advice of General Tudor, the Chief of Police, who, as soon as it was brought to his notice that an interpretation of this original order, "nearing the termination,"
could be extended to men who had more or less than nine months' service, took the view that that could not be maintained, and he did not allow applicants with less than nine months' service to re-engage in the Auxiliary Division. There was no question of the truce involved. There was no question of the saving of money involved. It was simply a question whether the original Order should be interpreted as applying to men who had served at least nine months or should be construed as applying to men who had served less than nine months. I felt justified in refusing this expenditure of public money——

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: You do not deny that the Order was published?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have set out in the White Paper all the Orders so that every Member of the House must judge for himself. I am giving my decision, based on the advice of the Chief of Police, which, I think, is fair to the cadets and fair to the public purse. I am at the present moment sympathetically considering certain specific cases of cadets who may be brought within all the Orders applying to the Force. When the Auxiliary Cadets were disbanded, they were met by the heads of the Police and the heads of the Civil Administration in Ireland. The whole question was gone into, including the very question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. The appointed a representative body, and that representative body signed an agreement agreeing to the terms on which the force had been disbanded. That agreement is set out on the last page of the White Paper, which I have circulated. I do not think that at this stage it is possible to re-open this question which, in my opinion, on its merits cannot be supported. As the terms of disbandment have been already agreed and acted upon by the men themselves and their representatives, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can fairly ask me again to appeal to the Treasury to spend tens of thousands of public money on this force, to whose efficiency I have often testified. I think the British Government owe them much, but I feel myself that we have treated them, not only according to the terms of their contract, but more generously.

Mr. S. WALSH: I am sorry the exigencies of the Session compel me now to
raise a matter to which I have already twice alluded. It will be remembered that my remarks on Monday night were interrupted under the Standing Orders of the House when I was drawing attention to what I am informed are existing difficulties in respect of coal dust at Pits Nos. 1 and 2 of the Haydock Colliery Company at St. Helens, Lancashire. The allegation made on behalf of the workmen is that the treatment of such coal dust by
the colliery officials is inadequate and does not comply with the conditions set out in Section 62 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before Five o'Clock till Wednesday, 26th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this Day.